$B    23t,    3Sfl 


'''A!:i,U.ALB 


lA  mnvbmittmm 


QS('^nald  QMi 


o^ed'. 


'*  One  of  t 

5.  EAT 

d; 

CI 

"  We  can 

6.  Till 

CI 

"  We  hav 
Chronicle. 

7.  HO^ 

"  We  wri 
good."— JV. 

8.  SOC 

P 
ti 

R 

"  We  can 
—America 

Q.    HI> 

•'  This  11' 
N.  Y.  Mai 

10.  Til 

C 
ii 
i 

"  Young 
from  this  I 

11.  TH 

r 
I 

s 
"  A  volt 

12.  HE 

c 

••  A  valt 

13.  wi 

"  The  ID 


PUTNAMS'  SERIES  OF  POPULAR  MANUALS. 

1.  A  DICTIONARY  OF  DERIVATIONS  of  the  English  Language. 

in  which  each  word  is  traced  to  its  primary  root.  Forming  a 
Text-Book  of  Etymology,  with  Definitions  and  the  Pronunciation 
of  each  word.     i6mo,  $l.oo. 

2.  A  HAND  BOOK  OF   SYNONYMS  of  the  English   Language, 

with  Definitions,  &c.     i6mo,  cloth,  $i.oo. 
*»*  Thcpe  two  Manuals  are  very  comprehensive  in  a  small  compasB. 

3.  IIALF-IIOURS  WITH  THE  MICROSCOPE.     By  Edwin  Lan- 

kester,  M.D.,  F.R.S.  Illustrated  by  250  Drawings  from  Nature. 
i8mo,  cloth,  $1.00. 

"This  beautiful  little  volume  is  a  very  complete  Manual  for  the  amateur  micro- 
Bcopist.  *  *  *  The 'Ilalf-ilours' are  tilled  with  clear  and  agreeable  description?, 
whilst  eight  plates,  executed  with  the  most  beautiful  minuteness  and  sharpness, 
exhibit  no  less  than  250  objects  with  the  utmost  attainable  distinctness."— C'nzic. 

4.  HALF-HOURS  WITH  THE  TELESCOPE  :     Being  a  popular 

Guide  to  the  Use  of  the  Telescope  as  a  means  of  Amusement  and 
Instruction.  Adapted  to  inexpensive  Instruments.  By  R.  A. 
Proctor,  B.A.,  F.R.A.S.  i2mo,  cloth,  with  Illustrations  on  stone 
and  wood.     Price,  $1.00. 

"It  is  crammed  with  starry  plates  on  wood  and  stone,  and  among  the  celestial 
phenomena  described  or  figured,  by  far  the  larger  number  may  be  profitably  ex- 
amined with  small  teleacopes.'^— Illustrated  Times. 

5.  HALF-PIOURS  WITH  THE  STARS:   A  Plain  and  Easy  Guide 

to  the  Knowledge  of  the  Constellations,  showing  in  12  Maps,  the 
Position  of  the  Principal  Star-Groups  Night  after  Night  through- 
out the  Year,  with  introduction  and  a  separate  "Explanation  of 
each  Map.  True  for  every  Year,  By  Richard  A.  Proctor,  B.A., 
F.R.A.S.     Demy  4to.     Price  $2.25. 

"Nothing  BO  well  calculated  to  give  a  rapid  and  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
position  of  the  stars  in  the  firmament  has  ever  been  designed  or  published  hitherto. 
Air.  Proctor's  'Half-Hours  with  the  Stars'  will  become  a  text-book  in  all  schools, 
and  an  invaluable  aid  to  all  teachers  of  the  young."— IFec^/y  Times. 

6.  MANUAL  OF  POPULAR  PHYSIOLOGY:    Being  an  Attempt 

to  Explain  the  Science  of  Life  in   Untechnical  Language.     By 
Henry  Lawson,  M.D.     i2mo,  with  go  Illustrations.     Price,  $1.00. 
Man's  Mechanism,  Life,  Force,  Food,  Digestion,  Respiration,  Heat, 
Skin,  the  Kidneys,  Nervous  System,  Organs  of  Sense,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 

"  Dr.  Lawson  has  succeeded  in  rendering  his  manual  amusing  as  well  as  in- 
stnictive.  All  the  great  facts  in  human  physiology  are  presented  to  the  reader 
successively;  and  either  for  private  reading  or  for  classes,  this  manual  will  be 
found  well  adapted  for  initiating  the  uninformed  into  the  mysteries  of  the 
structure  and  function  of  their  own  bodies.''''— Athevceum. 

%*  For  Sale  by  all  Booksellers,  and  sent  post-paid  on  receipt  of 
price,  by 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS, 
4th  Avenue  and  23d  Street^  Ifew  York, 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/essaysonpoliticaOObastricli 


SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION. 


BY 


FREDERICK  BASTIAT. 

WITH  PREFACE  BY 

HORACE    WHITE. 


12mo,  clcth,  400  pages,  $1.00. 


"  Contains  the  most  tellinfi^  statements  of  the  leading  principle* 
of  Free-Trade,  ever  published."— iV.  T.  Nation. 


WHAT  IS  FREE-TRADE  ? 

AN  ADAPTATION  FOR  AMERICAN  READERS  OF  BASTIAT' 
"  SOPniSMS  OF  PROTECTION." 

BY 

EMILE    WALTER, 

A  Worker. 


12mo.,   cloth,  -  75  cts. 

"Perhaps  unsurpassed  in  the  happiness  of  its  illustrations."— - 
N.  Y.  Nation. 


ESS  AY  S 


ON 


Political  Economy 


BY 

PREDEEICK  BASTIAT 

English  Translation  Bemsed,  with  Notes 

BY 

DAVID  A.  WELLS 


"  Moins  on  sail,  mains  on  doute;  moins  on  a  decouvert,  moins  on  voit  ce 
qui  reste  a  decouvrir.''''— {The  less  one  knows,  the  lees  one  doubts;  the  less 
one  discovers,  the  less  he  will  see  what  there  is  to  discover.)— Turgot. 


NEW  YORK 

G.   P.   PUTNAM'S    SONS 

182  Fifth  Avenuk 

1877 


COPTKIQHT, 

1877, 
Bt  G.  p.  Putnam's  Sons. 


dSMMin)  RVOSPS 


PEEFACE  BY  THE  AMEEICAK  EDITOE. 


Political  Economy,  in  the  opinion  of  most 
men,  is  but  the  expression  or^  n/im^  fQr„some,tbjn^ 
that  is  typically  dry,  wearisotne,  arid  tiripractical. 
Owing  to  the  sad  record  o?:  th^ follies ;of.l^gi^liit(jis, 
and  governments,  of  which  it  especially  takes  cog- 
nizance, and  to  the  unfavorable  conclusions  re- 
specting human  development  to  which  some  of  its 
investigators  and  teachers  have  been  led,  it  has 
also  received  the  name  of  "  The  Dismal  ScienceP 

But  if  political  economy  has  become  popularly 
invested  with  such  attributes,  and  has  been  stig- 
matized with  a  bad  name,  it  is  certainly  because 
of  the  methods  and  manner  in  which  its  precepts 
and  principles  have  been  taught,  rather  than  be- 
cause the  science  itself  is  either  repulsive  in 
theory  or  unprofitable  in  its  practical  application. 
For  political  economy,  in  truth,  is  but  the  history 
and  discussion  of  the  results  of  the  experience  of 
mankind  in  c^ettino^  a  livin2:,  and  in  securins:  tliat 
degree  of  material  abundance  which  will  admit  of 
leisure,  without  which  there  can  be  no  attainments 


887520 


IV  PKEFACE  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 

in  knowledge.  And  the  all-absorbing  feeling  of 
interest  which  invariably  takes  possession  of  those 
who  through  study  have  come  to  fully  appreciate 
the  nature  of  the  science,  centers  in  the  hope  and 
belief  that  throii2:h  the  determination  and  dissemi- 
nation  of  the  principles  deducible  from  this  experi- 
ence of  mankind,  toil,  hereafter,  to  the  masses,  will 
be  made  lighter,  justice  rendered  more  certain, 
cofaltbrt  inereasfidj,  and  abundance  be  made  greater. 
In  further  ill ustratipTi  of  these  propositions,  at- 
;ti3ption;iy,a'sked  to  th'e  na'ture  of  the  work  performed 
by  the  two  men,  who,  more  than  any  others,  may 
be  considered  as  having  founded,  during  the  last 
century,  the  science  of  modern  political  economy, 
namely,  Turgot  and  Adam  Smith.  The  former  be- 
came finance  minister  of  France  in  1774,  under 
Louis  XYI.,  shortly  after  the  death  of  Louis  XY. 
He  found  France,  and  in  fact  all  Europe,  steeped 
in  poverty  and  threatened  with  future  calamities, 
not  because  thecountry  was  deficient  in  natural  re- 
sources or  the  people  unwilling  to  labor,  but  because 
thi'ough  lack  of  any  appreciation  or  understanding 
of  the  most  simple  economic  laws  and  principles, 
the  governmental  authorities  had  so  multiplied 
taxes,  monopolized  trade,  and  restricted  commerce, 
that  production  was  everywhere  carried  on  at  the 
minimum  of  profit,  accumulation  prevented,  and 
distribution  so  impeded  that  the  people  in  one 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR.  V 

province  were  sometimes  allowed  to  starve,  while 
ill  an  adjoining  department  there  was  a  surplus 
seeking  a  market.  Turgot  <T.ttempted  reform  by 
practically  applying  and  carrying  out  the  element- 
ary principles  which  are  now  embodied  as  axioms 
in  every  modern  treatise  on  political  economy. 
By  royal  edict  issued  in  January,  1Y76,  he  made  it 
lawful,  for  the  first  time  in  France,  for  any  person^ 
man  or  woman,  to  follow  without  hindrance  any 
craft  or  profession  ;  he  abolished  all  the  privileges 
and  monopolies  of  all  the  guilds,  corporations,  and 
trading  companies  of  the  kingdom  ;  he  removed 
restrictions  on  trade  at  home,  and  on  commerce 
with  foreign  nations;  and  in  place  of  a  system  of 
diffused,  inquisitorial,  infinitesimal  taxes,  endeav- 
ored to  concentrate  taxation  on  a  comparatively 
few  objects.  The  following  extract  from  this  cele- 
brated edict  (made  in  the  name  of  the  king,  but 
written  by  Tijrgot),  which  it  is  believed  has  never 
before  been  translated  into  English,  further  illus- 
trates what  political  economy  was  understood  to  be 
by  this  one  of  the  acknowledged  founders  of  the 
science  : — 

"  It  has  come  to  be  a  popular  notion  that  the  right  to 
labor  is  a  matter  of  royal  prerogative  ;  something  that  the 
ruler  (State)  is  able  to  sell ;  something  which  the  subject 
ought  to  buy  ;  and  therefore  tliat  the  sale  of  grants  and 
privileges  to  labor,  to  produce,  and  to  exchange  ought  to  be 
made  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  State."     We  hasten  to  re- 


VI  PREFACE  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 

pudiate  any  such  principle.  God  in  giving  to  man  wants, 
rendered  it  necessary  that  he  should  have  property.  The 
right  to  labor  is  not  only  the  property  of  all  men,  hut  it  is 
the  first,  the  most  sacred,  and  the  most  imprescribable  of  all 
property.  We  therefore  regard  it  is  as  the  first  obligation 
on  our  justice,  and  as  an  act  most  worthy  of  our  benefi- 
cence, to  free  all  our  subjects  from  every  restriction  on  this 
most  inalienable  right  of  humanity.  We  therefore  abrogate 
every  arbitrary  institution  that  does  not  permit  the  poor  to 
ireely  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  labor;  which  tramples  down 
the  sex  whose  weakness  gives  it  more  of  wants  and  less  of 
resources,  and  which  in  condemning  woman  to  poverty  and 
idleness  promotes  immorality  and  debauchery  ;  which  ex- 
tinguishes emulation  in  industry,  and  renders  useless  the 
talent  of  those  who  are  excluded  from  trade  associations  ; 
which  deprives  the  State  of  the  industry,  the  trade,  and  the 
products  of  foreigners  ;  which  retards  the  progress  of  the 
arts  ;  and  finally,  which  gives  facility  to  members  of  cor- 
porations to  so  intrigue  among  themselves  as  to  force  those 
who  are  poor  to  submit  to  the  will  of  the  rich,  and  so  become 
the  instruments  of  monoply  and  the  supporters  of  schemes, 
the  sole  efiect  of  which  is  to  enable  a  few  to  enjoy  more 
than  their  rightful  proportion  of  these  commodities  which 
are  essential  to  the  subsistence  and  comfort  of  the  masses." 

This  edict,  which  was  little  else  than  the  enun- 
ciation of  the  modern  non-interference  theory  of 
government  with  production  and  distribution,  was 
cliaracterized  at  the  time  by  Yoltaire  as  the  great- 
test  single  step  ever  taken  in  civilization.  It  did 
not,  however,  succeed,  because  popular  ignorance 
and  the  interests  of  individuals,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  the  interests  of  the  masses,  which 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR.  Vll 

undoubtedly  regarded  then  (as  tliey  regard  now) 
the  views  of  students  of  economic  Laws  as  dry 
and  unpractical,  soon  effected  the  revocation  of 
the  edict.  But  had  it  been  maintained,  the 
French  revolution  of  1789 — certainly  with  its 
"reign  of  terror" — would  probably  never  have 
occurred. 

Consider  also  the  influence  of  the  work  per- 
formed by  that  other  great  political  economist, 
Adam  Smith,  as  embodied  in  his  "  Inquiry  into 
the  Nature  and  Causes  of  the  Wealth  of  JSTations." 
One  hundred  years  after  the  publication  of  this 
book,  the  judgment  of  an  acknowledged  financial 
authority,*  after  a  thorough  investigation  of  the 
whole  subject  was,  that  it  has  ^^  caused  more  money 
to  he  made^  and  prevented  more  money  from  lelng 
lost,  than  the  writings  of  any  other  author  /  "  while 
the  opinion  of  another,  f  not  less  qualified  to  pass 
judgment,  is,  that  the  claim  to  merit  of  Adam 
Smith's  teachings  was  not  "that  it  made  a  number 
of  rich  men  richer  than  they  were  before,  but  that 
it  invented  a  beneficial  and  blessed  secret  of  miti- 
gating the  labor  of  those  who  were  in  hard  and  bit- 
ter circumstances,  giving  comfort  and  even  reason- 
able abundance,  not  to  scores,  or  hundreds,  or 
thousands,  but  to  millions  to  whom  before  life 
was  a  burden." 
^London  Economist,  June,  1876.      f  Hon.  W.  E.  Gladstone. 


Vlll  PEEFACE  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 

Eiit  if  political  economy  is  thus  as  practical  and 
beneficent  in  its  teaching  and  application  as  his- 
torical results  and  the  concurrent  testimony  of 
those  best  qualified  to  judge  agree  that  it  has 
been  and  is;  if  it  tends  to  throw  light  on  what 
all  mankind  are  especially  interested  in  doing? 
namely,  improving  their  material  welfare,  it  would 
seem  that  its  study  ought  to  be  a  matter  of  special 
interest  to  all,  and  its  principles  and  propositions 
anything  but  dry  and  uninteresting.  Of  course,  in 
the  presentation  of  its  truths  and  results  there  is 
a  wide  difference  in  the  capacity  of  those  who  by 
study  and  investigation  have  acquired  a  rightful 
authority  to  teach.  The  possession  of  large 
knowledge  and  the  power  of  readily  and  attract- 
ively communicating  it,  are  not  often  happily 
united  in  one  and  the  same  person  ;  but  in  the  case 
of  the  eminent  Frenchman,  M.  Frederick  Bastiat 
(born  1801,  died  in  1850),  these  two  qualities  were 
BO  conjoined  that  his  expositions  and  illustrations 
of  politico-economic  topics  are  acknowledged  to  be 
more  lucid  and  convincing  than  those  of  almost 
any  other  author.  He  foresaw  that  a  knowledge 
of  the  fundamental  principles  of  political  economy 
diffused  among  the  masses  was  the  only  "  safe- 
guard of  democracy,"  and  the  surest  guarantee 
for  the  continuation  and  prosperity  of  all  forms 
of  government  that  are  based  on  extended  or  uni- 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR.  IX 

versal  suffrage.  He  bad  tlie  most  earnest  convic- 
tions of  the  truth  of  a  proposition  laid  down  by  the 
late  Harriet  Martineau,  more  than  forty  years  ago, 
in  the  preface  to  one  of  her  popular  essays,  that 
^'if  it  concerns  rulers  that  their  measures  should 
be  wise ;  if  it  concerns  the  wealthy  that  their  pro- 
perty should  be  secure,  the  middling  classes  that 
their  industry  should  be  rewarded,  the  poor  that 
their  hardships  should  be  redressed,  it  concerns  all 
that  political  economy  should  be  understood." 
And  with  this  foresight,  and  with  these  convic- 
tions, M.  Bastiat  especially  devoted  himself  to  the 
presentation  and  elucidation  of  those  questions  in 
political  economy  which  are  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance— because  they  intimately  concern  the  w^elfare 
of  the  masses — that  the  masses  should  thoroughly 
understand  ;  and  the  lack  of  which  understanding 
has  not  only  already  occasioned  serious  troubles 
in  almost  every  civilized  community,  but  threat- 
ens still  greater  evil  for  the  future.  Another 
great  merit  of  his  writings  is,  that  they  are  almost 
wdiolly  free  from  a  blemish  that  characterizes  a 
large  number  of  the  works  on  political  economy 
that  were  designed  to  be  popular,  namely,  the 
discussion  of  controverted  points  and  niceties,  and 
references  to  books  and  authors  that  have  pre- 
ceded, but  which  are  little  known,  or  not  accessible 
to  the  majority  of  readers. 


X  PEEFACE  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 

This  little  volume  is  made  up  of  a  selection  from 
the  essays  of  M.  Bastiat  that  have  in  a  high  degree 
these  popular  and  attractive  characteristics ;  such 
as  a  presentation  of  the  nature  of  capital  and 
interest,  and  the  relation  of  the  two ;  a  discussion, 
under  the  title  "  That  which  is  Seen^  and  that 
which  is  not  SeeUj^  of  the  evils  that  always  result 
from  limiting  consideration  of  the  effect  of  an 
economic  law,  tax,  or  institution  to  its  immediate 
visible  influence  and  ignoring  its  ultimate  conse- 
quences, introducing  in  so  doing  the  illustration 
whicli  has  passed  into  many  languages  of  the 
"  Broken  WindowP  Also  the  question  of  "  What 
is  Government  f  "  "  What  is  Money  ?  "  and  the 
nature,  object,  and  function  of  what  is  popularly 
and  generally  termed  ''llie  Zaio,*^  without  refer- 
ence to  any  particular  code  or  statute.  So  accepta- 
ble, indeed,  have  these  short  selected  essays  proved 
to  the  public,  that  repeated  editions  of  them  have 
been  published  in  France,  Belgium,  Germany, 
Italy,  England,  and  the  United  States;  and  all 
that  the  Editor  has  had  to  do  with  the  present 
American  edition  has  been  to  revise  the  previous 
English  translation,  which  was  exceedingly  imper- 
fect, and  in  some  instances  absolutely  without 
meaning.  Where  the  text,  which  was  originally 
written  to  meet  the  condition  of  affairs  in  France, 
at  the  time  of  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy  and 


PEEFACE  BY  THE  AMEBICAN  EDITOR.  XI 

the  establishment  of  the  republic  in  1848,  could  be 
chan.ged.  verbally  with  advantage  to  meet  the  dif- 
ferent condition  of  men,  laws,  and  things  at  present 
existing  in  the  United  States,  such  changes  have 
been  made ; — English  names  being  substituted  for 
French  ones,  dollars  and  cents  in  place  of  -francs 
and  sous,  and  the  like.  A  few  notes  pertinent  to 
the  subject-matter  of  the  text,  and  drawn  mainly 
from  the  recent  economic  experience  of  the  United 
States,  have  also  been  added. 

Finally,  as  no  pecuniary  advantage  whatever 
accrues  to  the  Editor  from  any  revision  or  repub- 
lication of  these  essays,  he  feels  at  liberty  to  com- 
mend them  to  all  friends  of  economic  studies  and 
reforms  in  the  United  States,  and  to  ask  theirco- 
operation  in  extending  their  circulation  among 
the  people. 

David  A.  W"ells. 
Norwich,  Conn.,  February,  1877. 


C0]:^rTE]:^5"TS 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

Introduction 1 

Ought  Capital  to  Produce  Interest? 8 

What  is  Capital  ? 23 

The  Sack  op  Corn 24 

.  The  House 28 

The  Plane 30 

What  Regulates  Interest  ? 48 

THAT   WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND  THAT  WHICH  IS 

NOT  SEEN 70 

The  Broken  Window 73 

The  Disbanding  of  Troops 77 

Taxes 83 

Theatres,  Fine  Arts 87 

Public  Works 96 

The  Middle-Men 100 

Restrictions 109 

Machinery 117 


Xiv  CONTENTS. 

Credit 127 

Algeria 184 

Frugality  and  Luxury 141 

He  who  has  a  Right  to  Labor  has  a  Right 

to  the  Profit  of  Laror 150 

GOVERNMENT 154 

WHAT  IS  MONEY? 174 

THE  LAW..... 221 


CAPITAL  AND   INTEEEST. 


INTRODUCTION. 

My  object  in  this  treatise  is  to  examine  into  the 
real  nature  of  the  Interest  of  Capital,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  proving  that  it  is  lawful,  and  explaining 
whj  it  should  be  perpetual.  This  may  appear 
singular,  and  yet,  I  confess,  I  am  more  afraid  I 
may  weary  the  reader  by  a  series  of  mere  truisms. 
But  it  is  no  easy  matter  to  avoid  this  danger, 
wheil  the  facts  with  which  we  have  to  deal  are 
known  to  every  one  by  personal,  familiar,  and 
daily  experience. 

But,  then,  you  will  say,  "  What  is  the  use  of 
this  treatise  ?  Why  explain  what  everybody 
knows  ? " 

But,  although  this  problem  appears  at  first 
sight  so  very  simple,  there  is  more  in  it  than  you 
might  suppose.  I  shall  endeavor  t6  prove  this 
by  an  example.  Thomas  lends  an  instrument  of 
labor  to-day,  which  will  be  entirely  destroyed  in 
a  week,  yet  the  capital  will  not  produce  the  less 
interest  to  Thomas  or  his  heirs,  through  all  eter- 
1 


2  CAPrrAL,  .AND  INTEREST. , , . 

nity.  Reader,  can  joii  honestly  say  tliat  you  un- 
derstand the  reason  of  tliis  ? 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  seek  any  satis- 
factory explanation  from  the  writings  of  econo- 
mists. They  have  not  thrown  much  light  upon 
the  reasons  of  the  existence  of  interest.  For  this 
they  are  not  to  be  blamed  ;  for  at  the  time  they 
wrote,  its  lawfulness  was  not  called  in  question. 
Now,  however,  times  are  altered  j  the  case  is  dif- 
ferent. Men,  who  consider  themselves  to  be  in 
advance  of  their  age,  have  organized  an  active 
crusade  against  capital  and  interest ;  it  is  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  capital  which  they  are  attacking ; 
not  certain'  abuses  in  the  administration  of  it,  but 
the  principle  itself. 

Some  years  ago  a  journal  was  established  in 
Paris  by  M.  Proudhon,  especially  to  promote  this 
crusade,  which  for  a  time  is  reported  to  have  had 
a  very  large  circulation.  The  first  number  that 
w^s  issued  contained  the  following  declaration  of 
its  principles  : — "  The  productiveness  of  capital, 
which  is  condemned  by  Christianity  under  the 
name  of  usury,  is  the  true  cause  of  misery,  the 
true  origin  qi  destitution,  the  eternal  obstacle  to 
the  establishment  of  a  true  Republic." 

Another  French  journal,  Za  Ruche  Populaire^ 
also  thus  expresses  its  views  on  this  subject : — 
*'  But  above  all,  labor  ought  to  be  free  ;  that  is, 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  3 

it  ouglit  to  be  organized  in  sncli  a  manner  that 
money-lenders  and  oioners  or  controllers  of  capital 
sJiould  not  he  paid  for  granting  the  opportunity  to 
labor,  and  for  which  privilege  they  charge  as  high 
a  price  as  possible.  The  only  thought  that  I  notice 
here,  is  that  expressed  by  the  words  in  the  italics, 
which  imply  a  denial  of  the  right  to  take  interest. 

A  noted  leader  among  the  French  Socialists, 
M.  Thore,  also  thus  expresses  himself  : — 

**  The  revolution  will  always  have  to  be  recom- 
menced, so  long  as  we  occupy  ourselves  with  con- 
sequences only,  withont  having  the  logic  or  the 
courage  to  attack  the  principle  itself.  This  prin- 
ciple is  capital,  false  property,  interest,  and  usury, 
which  by  old  custom  is  made  to  weigh  upon 
labor. 

"Ever  since  the  aristocrats  invented  the  in- 
credible fiction,  that  capital  possesses  the  power  of 
reprodiccing  itself  the  workers  have  been  at  the 
mercy  of  the  idle. 

"  At  the  end  of  a  year,  will  you  find  an  addi- 
tional dollar  in  a  bag  of  one  hundred  dollars? 
At  the  end  of  fourteen  years  will  your  dollars 
have  doubled  in  your  bag? 

"  Will  a  work  of  industry  or  of  skill  produce 
another,  at  the  end  of  fourteen  years  ? 

"  Let  us  begin,  then,  by  demolishing  this  fatal 
fiction." 


4:  CAPITAL  AND  EsTEKEST.   * 

I  hare  quoted  the  above,  merely  for  the  sake 
of  establisliing  the  fact  that  many  persons  con- 
sider the  productiveness  of  capital  a  false,  a  fatal, 
and  an  iniquitous  principle,*     But  quotations  are 

*  In  this  essay,  -wrinen  for  his  countrymen,  M.  B&stiat 
quotes  exclusively,  as  was  natural,  from  Ffencli  writers,  for 
the  purpose  of  illustrating  the  views  of  those  who  maintain 
tliat  the  loan  of  capital  for  interest  or  hire  is  iniquitous 
{ran  a  moral  point  of  view,  and  economically  considered  un- 
profitable to  the  people  ccdlectively.  But  quotations  of  a 
einiilar  character  might  equally  well  have  been  made  from. 
English  and  American  writers,  who  in  some  instances  are 
men  who  have  attained  to  no  little  reputation.  Thus,  for 
example,  John  Ruskin,  the  well-known  English  art  critic,  in 
his  Fors  Clatigera,  thus  reasons  respecting  "  the  immoral 
nature  and  injurious  effects"  of  the  taking  of  interest. 
^  Usury,"  he  says,  "  is  properly  the  taking  of  money  for  the 
loan  or  use  of  anything  (over  and  above  what  pays  for  wear 
and  tear),  such  use  involving  no  care  or  labor  on  the  part  of 
the  lender.  It  indudes  all  investments  of  capital  whatso- 
ever, returning  '  dividends,"  as  distinguished  from  labor 
wages  or  profits.  Thus  anybody  who  works  on  a  railroad  as 
pla^Iayer  or  stoker  has  a  right  to  wages  for  his  work  ;  and 
any  inspector  of  wheels  or  rails  has  a  right  to  payment  for 
such  inspection ;  but  idle  persons  who  have  only  paid  a  hun- 
dred pounds  towards  the  road-making,  have  a  right  to  the 
return  of  the  hundred  pwunds — and  no  more.  If  they  take  a 
farthing  more;  they  are  usurers.  They  may  take  fifty  pounds 
for  two  years,  twenty-five  for  four,  five  for  twenty,  or  one  for 
a  hundred.  But  the  first  farthing  they  take  more  than  their 
hundred,  be  it  sooner  or  later,  is  usury. 

^  Again,  when  we  build  a  house,  and  let  it,  we  have  a  right 
to  a£  much  rent  as  will  return  us  the  wages  of  our  labor,  and 


CAPITAL  AKD  EsTEEEST.  5 

snperfluons;  it  is  well  known  that  large  num- 
bers of  poor  people  attribute  their  poverty  to 
what  they  call  the  tyranny  of  capital:  meaning 
thereby  the  nn willingness  of  the  owners  of  eapi- 

the  sam  of  our  outlay.  If,  as  in  ordinarr  cases,  not 
laboring  with  our  hands  or  head,  \re  have  simply  paid — saj 
one  thousand  pounds — to  get  the  house  built,  we  have  a 
light  to  the  one  thousand  pounds  back  again  at  once,  if  we 
Bell  it  ;  or,  if  we  let  it,  to  five  hundred  pounds  rent  dur- 
ing two  years,  or  one  hundred  pounds  rent  during  ten  rears 
or  ten  pounds  rent  during  a  hundred  rears.  But  if,  sooner 
or  later,  we  take  a  pound  more  than  the  thousand,  we  are 
usurers. 

"  And  thus  in  all  other  xmssible  or  conodvable  cases,  the 
moment  our  capitjd  is  *  increased '  br  having  lent  it,  be  it 
but  in  the  estimation  of  a  hair;  that  hair's- breadth  of  increase 
i^  usury,  just  as  much  as  stealing  a  farthing  is  theit,  no  lesB 
than  stealing  a  million. 

**  But  usury  is  worse  than  theft,  in  so  far  as  it  is  obtained 
either  by  deceiving  people  or  distreBsiiig  than ;  generally 
by  both  ;  and  finally  by  deceiving  the  usaror  himsdf,  who 
comes  to  think  that  usury  is  a  real  increase,  and  that  mcHiej 
can  grow  of  money  ;  whereas  all  usury  is  increase  to  one  po'- 
son  only  by  decrease  to  another ;  and  every  grain  of  calca> 
lated  Increment  to  the  rich  is  balanced  by  its  mathematical 
equivalent  of  Decrement  to  the  poor."  And  again:  **  We  need 
not  fear  our  power  of  becoming  good  Christians  ret,  if  we 
will ;  so  only  that  we  understand,  finally  and  utterly,  that 
all  gain,  increase,  interest,  or  whatever  else  yoa  call  it  f» 
think  it,  to  the  lender  of  capital,  is  loss,  dtecxease,  and  dis- 
interest to  the  borrower  of  capital.  Every  farthing  we,  who 
lend  the  tool,  make,  the  borrower  of  the  tool  looses.  And  all 
the  idiotical  calculations  of  what  xnonej  oomes  to,  in  so 


6  CAPITAL  AND   INTEREST. 

tal  to  allow  others  to  use  it  without  security  for 
its  safe  return  and  compensation  for  its  use. 

I  believe  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  world,  who 
is  aware  of  the  whole  importance  of  this  question  : 
"Is  the  interest  of  capital  natural,  just,  and 
lawful,  and  as  useful  to  the  borrower  who  pays, 
as  to  the  lender  who  receives  ?  " 

You  answer,  No ;  I  answer,  Yes.  Then  we 
differ  entirely ;  but  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance 

many  years,  simply  ignore  the  debit  side  of  the  book,  on 
which  the  Laborer's  Deficit  is  precisely  equal  to  the  Capi- 
talist's Efficit.  I  saw  an  estimate  made  by  some  blockhead 
in  an  American  paper,  the  other  day,  of  the  weight  of  gold 
which  a  hundred  years' '  interest '  on  such  and  such  funds 
would  load  the  earth  with  !  Not  even  of  wealth  in  that 
solid  form,  could  the  poor  wretch  perceive  so  much  of  the 
truth  as  that  the,  gold  he  put  on  the  earth  above,  he  must 
dig  out  of  the  earth  below  1  But  the  mischief  in  real  life  is 
far  deeper  on  the  negative  side,  than  the  good  on  the  positive. 
The  debt  of  the  borrower  loads  his  heart,  cramps  his  hands, 
and  dulls  his  labor.  The  gain  of  the  lender  hardens  his 
heart,  fouls  his  brain,  and  puts  every  means  of  mischief  into 
his  otherwise  clumsy  and  artless  hands." 

As  an  illustration  of  similar  views  of  American  origin,  a 
pamphlet  on  Labor  Reform,  by  John  T.  Campbell,  of  Indiana, 
published  in  1872,  and  which  has  attained  considerable  popu- 
larity and  circulation,  thus  commences  a  chapter  on  the 
causes  affecting  the  distribution  of  wealth  : 

**  What,  then,  are  the  means  used  by  which  wealth  which 
labor  produces  is  transferred  to  the  possession  of  the  non-pro- 
ducing few?  It  is  simply  an  instrument  of  refined  robbery. 
It  is  money  and  its  interest." 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEEEST.  7 

to  discover  wliicli  of  ns  is  in  the  right,  otherwise 
we  shall  incur  the  danger  of  making  a  false  solu- 
tion of  the  question,  a  matter  of  opinion.  If  the 
error  is  on  my  side,  however,  the  evil  would  not 
be  so  great.  It  must  be  inferred  that  I  know 
nothing  about  the  true  interests  of  the  masses,  or 
the  march  of  human  progress ;  and  that  all  my 
arguments  are  but  as  so  many  grains  of  sand,  by 
which  the  car  of  the  revolution  will  certainly  not 
be  arrested. 

But  if,  on  the  contrary,  men  like  Proudhon  and 
There  in  France  (John  Ruskin  in  England,  and 
others  in  the  United  States)  are  deceiving  them- 
selves, it  follows  that  they  are  leading  the  people 
astray — that  they  are  showing  them  evil  where  it 
does  not  exist;  and  thus  giving  a  false  direction 
to  their  ideas,  to  their  antipathies,  to  their  dis- 
likes, and  to  their  attacks.  It  follows  that  the 
misguided  people  are  rushing  into  a  horrible  and 
absurd  struggle,  in  which  victory  would  be  more 
fatal  than  defeat;  since,  according  to  this  sup- 
position, the  result  would  be  the  realization  of 
universal  evils,  the  destruction  of  every  means 
of  emancipation,  the  consummation  of  its  own 
misery. 

This  is  just  what  M.  Proudhon  has  acknowl- 
edged, with  perfect  good  faith.  "  The  foundation 
stone,"  he  told  me,  "  of  my  system  is  the  gratui- 


8  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

tousness  of  credit.  If  I  am  mistaken  in  this, 
Socialism  is  a  vain  dream."  I  add,  it  is  a  dream, 
in  which  the  people  are  tearing  themselves  to 
pieces.  Will  it,  therefore,  be  a  cause  for  surprise, 
if,  when  they  awake,  they  find  themselves  man- 
gled and  bleeding?  Such  a  danger  as  this  is 
enough  to  justify  me  fully,  if,  in  the  course  of  the 
discussion,  I  allow  myself  to  be  led  into  some 
trivialities  and  some  prolixity. 

OUGHT   CAPITAL  TO  PRODUCE  INTEREST? 

I  address  this  treatise  to  working  men,  more 
especially  to  those  who  have  enrolled  themselves 
under  the  banner  of  Socialist  democracy.  I  pro- 
ceed to  consider  these  two  questions  : — 

1st.  Is  it  consistent  with  the  nature  of  things, 
and  with  justice,  that  capital  should  produce  in- 
terest ? 

2d.  Is  it  consistent  with  the  nature  of  things, 
and  with  justice,  that  the  interest  of  capital  should 
be  perpetual  ? 

The  working  men  everywhere  will  certainly  ac- 
knowledge that  a  more  important  subject  could 
not  be  discussed. 

Since  the  world  began,  it  has  been  allowed,  at 
least  in  part,  that  capital  ought  to  produce  in- 
terest. But  latterly  it  has  been  affirmed  that 
herein  lies  the  very  social  error  which   is  the 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  9 

cause  of  pauperism  and  inequality.  It  is,  there- 
fore, very  essential  to  know  now  on  what  ground 
w^e  stand. 

For  if  levying  interest  from  capital  is  a  sin,  the 
workers  have  a  right  to  revolt  against  social  order, 
as  it  exists.  It  is  in  vain  to  tell  them  that  they 
ought  to  have  recourse  to  legal  and  pacific  means  : 
it  would  be  a  hypocritical  recommendation. 
"When  on  the  one  side  there  is  a  strong  man, 
poor,  and  a  victim  of  robbery — on  the  other,  a 
weak  man,  but  rich,  and  a  robber — it  is  singular 
enougli  that  we  should  say  to  the  former,  with  a 
hope  of  persuading  him,  "  "Wait  till  your  oppres- 
sor voluntarily  renounces  oppression,  or  till  it 
shall  cease  of  itself."  This  cannot  be ;  and  those 
who  tell  us  that  capital  is  by  nature  unproductive, 
ought  to  know  that  they  are  provoking  a  terrible 
and  disastrous  struggle. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  interest  of  capital  is 
natural,  lawful,  consistent  with  the  general  good, 
as  favorable  to  the  borrower  as  to  the  lender, 
the  economists  who  den}?-  it,  the  writers  who 
grieve  over  this  pretended  social  wound,  are 
leading  the  workmen  into  a  senseless  and  unjust 
effort  which  can  have  no  other  issue  than  the 
misfortune  of  all.  In  fact,  they  are  arming  labor 
against  capital.  So  much  the  better,  if  these  two 
powers   are   really   antagonistic;    and    may   the 


10  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

struggle  soon  be  ended !  But,  if  they  are  in  har- 
mony, the  struggle  is  the  greatest  evil  which  can 
be  inflicted  on  society.  You  see,  then,  workmen, 
that  there  is  not  a  more  important  question  than 
this : — "  Is  the  interest  of  capital  rightful  or 
not  ? "  In  the  former  case,  you  must  immediately 
renounce  the  struggle  to  which  you  are  being 
urged ;  in  the  second,  you  must  carry  it  on  brave- 
ly, and  to  the  end. 

Productiveness  of  capital — ^perpetuity  of  in- 
terest. These  are  difficult  questions.  I  must  en- 
deavor to  make  myself  clear.  And  for  that  pur- 
pose I  shall  have  recourse  to  example  rather  than 
to  demonstration  ;  or  rather,  I  shall  place  the  de- 
monstration in  the  example.  I  begin  by  acknowl- 
edging that,  at  first  sight,  it  may  appear  strange 
that  capital  should  pretend  to  a  remuneration,  and 
above  all  to  a  perpetual  remuneration.  You  will 
say,  "Here  are  two  men.  One  of  them  works 
from  morning  till  night,  from  one  year's  end 
to  another ;  and  if  he  consumes  all  which  he  has 
gained,  even  by  superior  energy,  he  remains  poor. 
When  Christmas  comes  he  is  in  no  better  condition 
than  he  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  and  has 
no  other  prospect  but  to  begin  again.  The  other 
man  does  nothing,  either  with  his  hands  or  his 
liead  ;  or  at  least,  if  he  makes  use  of  them  at  all, 
it  is  only  for  his  own  pleasure  ;  it  is  allowable  for 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  11 

him  to  do  nothing,  for  he  has  an  income.  He 
does  not  work,  yet  he  lives  well ;  he  has  every- 
thing in  abundance  ;  delicate  dishes,  sumptuous 
furniture,  elegant  equipages ;  nay,  he  even  con- 
sumes, daily,  things  which  the  workers  have  been 
obliged  to  produce  by  the  sweat  of  their  brow, 
for  these  things  do  not  make  themselves  ;  and,  as 
far  as  he  is  concerned,  he  has  had  no  hand  in 
their  production.  It  is  the  workmen  who  have 
caused  this  corn  to  grow,  elaborated  this  furniture, 
woven  these  carpets ;  it  is  our  wives  and  daugh- 
ters who  have  spun,  cut-out,  sewed,  and  embroid- 
ered these  stuffs.  We  work,  then,  for  him  and 
for  ourselves ;  for  him  j5rst,  and  then  for  our- 
selves, if  there  is  anything  left.  But  here  is  some- 
thing more  striking  still.  If  the  former  of  these 
two  men,  the  worker,  consumes  within  the  year 
any  profit  which  may  have  been  left  him  in  that 
year,  he  is  always  at  the  point  from  which  he 
started,  and  his  destiny  condemns  him  to  move 
incessantly  in  a  perpetual  circle,  and  in  a  monotony 
of  exertion.  Labor,  then,  is  rewarded  only  once. 
But  if  the  other,  the  'gentleman,'  consumes  his 
yearly  income  in  tlie  year,  he  has,  the  year  after, 
in  those  which  follow,  and  through  all  eternity, 
an  income  always  equal,  inexhaustihle,  j>erpetual. 
Capital,  then,  is  remunerated,  not  only  once  or 
twice,  but  an  indefinite  number  of  times!     So 


12  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

that,  at  the  end  of  a  hundred  years,  a  fomily 
which  has  placed  20,000  francs,"^  at  five  per  cent, 
will  have  had  100,000  francs ;  and  this  will  not 
prevent  from  having  100,000  francs  more  in  the 
following  century.  In  other  words,  for  20,000 
francs,  which  represents  its  labor,  it  will  have 
levied,  in  two  centuries,  a  tenfold  value  on  the 
labor  of  others.  In  this  social  arrangement  is 
there  not  a  monstrous  evil  to  be  reformed  ?  And 
this  is  not  all.  If  it  should  please  this  family  to 
curtail  its  enjoyments  a  little — to  spend,  for  ex- 
ample, only  900  francs,  instead  of  1,000 — it  may, 
without  any  labor,  without  any  other  trouble  be- 
yond that  of  investing  100  francs  a  year,  increase 
its  capital  and  its  income  in  such  rapid  progres- 
sion that  he  will  soon  be  in  a  position  to  consume 
as  much  as  a  hundred  families  of  industrious 
workmen.  Does  not  all  this  go  to  prove  that 
society  itself  has  in  its  bosom  a  hideous  cancer, 
which  ought  to  be  eradicated  at  the  risk  of  some 
temporary  suffering  ? " 

These  are,  it  appears  to  me,  the  sad  and  irritat- 
ing reflections  which  must  be  excited  in  your 
minds  by  the  active  and  superficial  crusade  which 
is  being  carried  on  against  capital  and  interest. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  moments  in  which, 
I   am  convinced,  doubts  are  awakened   in  your 

*  A  franc  is  19.3  cents  of  our  money. 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEKEST.  13 

minds,  and  scruples  in  your  conscience.  You  say- 
to  yourselves  sometimes :  "  But  to  assert  that 
capital  ouglit  not  to  produce  interest,  is  to  say  that 
he  who  has  created  instruments  of  labor,  or  mate- 
rials, or  provisions  of  any  kind,  ought  to  yield 
them  up  without  compensation.  Is  that  just  ? 
And  then,  if  it  is  so,  who  would  lend  these  in- 
struments, these  materials,  these  provisions  ?  who 
would  take  care  of  them  ?  who  even  would  create 
them  ?  Every  one  would  consume  his  proportion, 
and  the  human  race  wou]d  not  advance  a  step. 
Capital  would  be  no  longer  accumulated,  since  there 
would  be  no  interest  in  accumulatiug  it.  It  would 
become  exceedingly  scarce.  This  would  be  a  most 
singular  step  for  the  obtaining  of  loans  gratui- 
tously !  A  singular  means  of  improving  the  con- 
dition of  borrowers,  to  make  it  impossible  for 
thein  to  borrow  at  any  price !  What  would  be- 
come of  labor  itself?  for  there  w^ill  be  no  money 
advanced,  and  not  one  single  kind  of  labor  can 
be  mentioned,  not  even  the  chase,  which  can  be 
pursued  without  capital  of  some  kind.  And,  as 
for  ourselves,  w^hat  would  become  of  us  ?  What ! 
we  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  borrow,  in  order  to 
work  in  the  prime  of  life,  nor  to  lend,  that  we 
may  enjoy  repose  in  its  decline  ?  The  law  will 
rob  us  of  the  prospect  of  laying  by  a  little  prop- 
erty, because  it  will  prevent  us  from  gaining  any 


14  CAPITAL  AND  INTEKEST. 

advantage  from  it.  It  will  deprive  us  of  all  stim- 
ulus to  save  at  the  present  time,  and  of  all  hope 
of  repose  for  the  future.  It  is  useless  to  exhaust 
ourselves  with  fatigue ;  we  must  abandon  the  idea 
of  leaving  our  sons  and  daughters  a  little  prop- 
erty, since  the  new  views  render  it  useless,  for  we 
should  become  traffickers  in  the  toil  of  men  if  we 
were  to  lend  it  on  interest.  Alas !  the  world  which 
these  persons  would  open  before  us,  as  an  imagin- 
ary good,  is  still  more  dreary  and  desolate  than 
that  which  they  condemn,  for  hope,  at  any  rate, 
is  not  banished  from  the  latter."  Thus,  in  all 
respects,  and  in  every  point  of  view,  the  qiiestion  is 
a  serious  one.  Let  us  hasten  to  arrive  at  a  solution. 
The  French  civil  code  has  a  chapter  entitled, 
"On  the  manner  of  transmitting  property." 
"When  a  man  by  his  labor  has  made  some  use- 
ful things — in  other  words,  when  he  has  cre- 
ated a  value — it  can  only  pass  into  the  hands 
of  another  by  one  of  the  following  modes  : — as  a 
gift,  hy  the  right  of  inheritance ,  by  exchange, 
loan^  or  theft.  One  word  upon  each  of  these,  ex- 
cept the  last,  although  it  plays  a  greater  part  in 
the  world  than  we  may  think.  A  gift  needs  no 
definition.  It  is  essentially  voluntary  and  spon- 
taneous. It  depends  exclusively  upon  the  giver, 
and  the  receiver  cannot  be  said  to  have  any  right 
to  it.     Without  a  doubt,  morality  and  religion 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEEEST.  15 

make  it  a  duty  for  men,  especially  the  rich,  to  de- 
prive themselves  voluntarily  of  that  which  they 
possess,  in  favor  of  their  less  fortunate  brethren. 
But  this  is  an  entirely  moral  obligation.  If  it 
were  to  be  asserted  on  principle,  admitted  in 
practice,  sanctioned  by  law,  that  every  man  has  a 
right  to  the  property  of  another,  the  gift  w^ould 
have  no  merit — charity  and  gratitude  would  be 
no  longer  virtues.  Besides,  such  a  doctrine  would 
suddenly  and  universally  arrest  labor  and  produc- 
tion, as  severe  cold  congeals  water  and  suspends 
animation  ;  for  who  would  work  if  there  was  no 
longer  to  be  any  connection  between  labor  and 
the  satisfying  of  our  w^ants?  Political  economy 
has  not  treated  of  gifts.  It  has  hence  been  con- 
cluded that  it  disowns  them,  and  that  it  is  there- 
fore a  science  devoid  of  heart.  This  is  a  ridicu- 
lous accusation.  That  science  which  treats  of  the 
laws  resulting  from  the  TecijpTOcity  of  services 
had  no  business  to  inquire  into  the  consequences 
of  generosity  with  respect  to  him  who  receives, 
nor  into  its  eifects,  perhaps  still  more  precious,  on 
him  who  gives.  Such  considerations  belong  evi- 
dently to  the  science  of  morals.  We  must  allow 
the  sciences  to  have  limits ;  above  all,  w^e  must 
not  accuse  them  of  denying  or  undervaluing 
what  they  look  upon  as  foreign  to  their  depart- 
ment. 


16  CAPITAL  AXD  DTTEKEST. 

The  right  of  {nAent4xmXj  against  which  so  much 
has  been  objected  of  late,  is  one  of  the  forms  of 
gift,  and  assuredly  the  most  natural  of  all.  That 
-which  a  man  has  produced,  he  may  consume,  ex- 
change, or  give.  What  can  be  more  natural  than 
that  he  should  give  it  to  his  children  ?  It  is  this 
power,  more  than  any  other,  which  inspires  him 
with  courage  to  labor  and  to  save.  Do  you  know 
why  the  principle  of  right  of  inheritance  is  thus 
called  in  question  ?  Because  it  is  imagined  that 
the  property  thus  transmitted  is  plundered  from 
the  masses.  This  is  a  fahd  error.  Political  econ- 
omy demonstrates,  in  the  most  peremptory  man- 
ner, that  all  value  produced  is  a  creation  which 
does  no  harm  to  any  person  whatever.  For  that 
reason  it  may  be  consumed,  and,  still  more,  trans- 
mitted, without  hurting  any  one ;  but  I  shall  not 
pursue  these  reflections,  which  do  not  belong  to 
the  subject. 

Exchange  is  the  principal  department  of  politi- 
cal economy,  because  it  is  by  far  the  most  frequent 
method  of  transmitting  property,  according  to  the 
free  and  voluntary  acquiescence  in  the  laws  and 
effects  of  which  this  science  treats. 

Properly  speaking,  exchange  is  the  reciprocity 
of  services.  The  parties  say  between  themselves, 
'*  Give  me  this,  and  I  wiU  give  you  that ; "  or, 
*'  Do  this  for  me,  and  I  will  do  that  for  you.- '    It 


CAPITAL  AND  IXTEEEST.  17 

is  well  to  remark  (for  this  will  throw  a  new  light 
on  the  notion  of  value)  that  the  second  form  is 
always  implied  in  the  first.  When  it  is  said,  "Do 
this  for  me,  and  I  will  do  that  for  joii,"  an  ex- 
change of  service  for  service  is  proposed.  Again, 
wGen  it  is  said,  "  Give  me  this,  and  I  will  give 
you  that,"  it  is  the  same  as  sa^ang,  "  I  yield  to 
you  what  I  have  done,  yield  to  me  what  you  have 
done."  The  labor  is  past,  instead  of  present ;  but 
the  exchange  is  not  the  less  governed  by  the  com- 
parative valuation  of  the  two  services ;  so  that  it 
is  quite  correct  to  say  that  the  principle  of  value 
is  in  the  services  rendered  and  received  on  account 
of  the  productions  exchanged,  rather  than  in  the 
productions  themselves. 

In  reality,  services  are  scarcely  ever  exchanged 
directly.  There  is  a  medium,  which  is  termed 
money.  Paul  has  completed  a  coat,  for  which  he 
wishes  to  receive  a  little  bread,  a  little  wine,  a 
little  oil,  a  visit  from  a  doctor,  a  ticket  for  the 
play,  etc.  The  exchange  cannot  be  efiected  in 
kind,  so  what  does  Paul  do  ?  He  first  exchanges 
his  coat  for  some  monej^,  which  is  called  selling  / 
then  he  exchanges  this  money  again  for  the  things 
which  he  wants,  which  is  cdi\\Q,di  purchasing ;  and 
now,  only,  has  the  reciprocity  of  service  com- 
pleted its  circuit ;  now,  only,  the  labor  and  the 
compensation  are  balanced  in  the  same  individ- 


18  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

ual, — "  I  have  done  this  for  society,  it  has  done 
that  for  me."  In  a  word,  it  is  only  now  that  the 
exchange  is  actually  accomplished.  Thus,  noth- 
ing can  be  more  correct  than  this  observation  of 
J.  B.  Say  : — "  Since  the  introduction  of  money, 
every  exchange  is  resolved  into  two  elements, 
sale  and  jpurchase.  It  is  the  reunion  of  these 
two  elements  whicli  renders  the  exchange  com- 
plete." 

We  must  remark,  also,  that  the  constant  appear- 
ance of  money  in  every  exchange  has  overturned 
and  misled  all  our  ideas:  men  have  ended  in 
thinking  that  money  was  true  riches,  and  that 
to  multiply  it  was  to  multiply  services  and  pro- 
ducts. Hence  the  protective  system ;  hence 
paper  money ;  lience  the  celebrated  aphorism, 
"What  one  gains  the  other  loses;"  and  of  the 
errors  which  have  impoverished  the  eartli,  and  im- 
brued it  wdth  blood.^  After  much  investigation 
it  has  been  found,  that  in  order  to  make  the  two 
services  exchanged  of  equivalent  value,  and  in 
order  to  render  the  exchange  equitable^  the  best 
means  was  to  allow  it  to  be  free.  However  plausi- 
ble, at  first  sight,  the  intervention  of  the  State 
might  be,  it  was  soon  perceived  that  it  is  always 
oppressive  to   one  or  other  of   the   contracting 

*  This  error  M.  Bastiat  afterward  specially  combated  and 
exposed  in  a  pamphlet,  entitled  Cwr^ecZ  Money. 


CAI^TAL  AND  INTEREST.  19 

parties.  When  we  look  into  these  subjects,  we 
are  always  compelled  to  reason  upon  this  maxim, 
that  equal  value  results  from  liberty.  We  have, 
in  fact,  no  other  means  of  knowing  whether,  at  a 
given  moment,  two  services  are  of  the  same  value, 
but  that  of  examining  whether  they  can  be  readily 
and  freely  exchanged.  Allow  the  State,  which  is 
the  same  thing  as  force,  to  interfere  on  one  side  or 
the  other,  and  from  that  moment  all  the  means 
of  appreciation  will  be  complicated  and  entangled, 
instead  of  becoming  clear.  It  ought  to  be  the 
part  of  the  State  to  prevent,  and,  above  all,  to 
repress  artifice  and  fraud ;  that  is,  to  secure  lib- 
erty, and  not  to  violate  it.  I  have  enlarged  a 
little  upon  exchange,  although  loan  is  my  princi- 
pal object:  my  excuse  is,  that  I  conceive  that 
there  is  in  a  loan  an  actual  exchange,  an  actual 
service  rendered  by  the  lender,  and  which  makes 
the  borrower  liable  to  an  equivalent  service, — two 
services,  whose  comparative  value  can  only  be 
appreciated,  like  that  of  all  possible  services,  by 
freedom.  Now,  if  it  is  so,  the  perfect  rightfulness 
of  what  is  called  house-rent,  farm-rent,  interest, 
will  be  explained  and  understood.  Let  us  consider 
what  is  involved  in  a  loan. 

Suppose  two  men  exchange  two  services  or  two 
objects,  whose  equal  value  is  beyond  all  dispute. 
Suppose,  for  example,  Peter  says  to  Paul,  "  Give 


20  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

me  ten  ten-cent  pieces,  I  will  give  you  a  silver 
dollar."  We  cannot  imagine  an  equal  value  more 
unquestionable.  Wlien  the  bargain  is  made,  nei- 
ther party  has  any  claim  upon  the  other.  The 
exchanged  services  are  equal.  Then  it  follows, 
that  if  one  of  the  parties  wishes  to  introduce  into 
the  bargain  an  additional  clause,  advantageous  to 
himself,  but  unfavorable  to  the  other  party,  he 
must  agree  to  a  second  clause,  which  shall  re- 
establish the  equilibrium,  and  the  law  of  justice. 
It  would  be  absurd  to  deny  the  justice  of  a  second 
clause  of  compensation.  This  granted,  we  will  sup- 
pose that  Peter,  after  having  said  to  Paul,  "  Give 
me  ten  ten-cent  pieces,  I  will  give  you  a  dollar," 
adds,  "  You  shall  give  me  the  ten  ten-cent  pieces 
noiv,  and  I  will  give  you  the  silver  dollar  in  a 
year  ;  "  it  is  very  evident  that  this  new  proposi- 
tion alters  the  claims  and  advantages  of  the  bar- 
gain ;  that  it  alters  the  proportion  of  the  two  ser- 
vices. Does  it  not  appear  plainly  e«ough,  in  fact, 
that  Peter  asks  of  Paul  a  new  and  an  additional 
service ;  one  of  a  different  kind  ?  Is  it  not  as  if  he 
had  said,  "  Render  me  the  service  of  allowing  me 
to  use  for  my  profit,  for  a  year,  the  dollar  which 
belongs  to  you,  and  which  you  might  have  used  for 
yourself  'i "  And  what  good  reason  have  you  to 
maintain  that  Paul  is  bound  to  render  this  espe- 
cial service  gratuitously ;  that  he  has  no  right  to 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  21 

demand  anything  more  in  consequence  of  this 
requisition ;  that  the  State  ought  to  interfere  to 
force  him  to  submit  'i  Is  it  not  incomprehensible 
that  the  economist,  who  preaches  such  a  doctrine 
to  the  people,  can  reconcile  it  with  his  principle 
of  the  reciprocity  of  service  f  Here  I  have  intro- 
duced money ;  I  have  been  led  to  do  so  by  a  desire 
to  place,  side  by  side,  two  objects  of  exchange,  of 
a  perfect  and  indisputable  equality  of  value.  1 
was  anxious  to  be  prepared  for  objections ;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  my  demonstration  would  have 
been  more  striking  still,  if  I  had  illustrated  my 
principle  by  an  agreement  for  exchanging  of  ser- 
vices or  commodities  directly. 

Suppose,  for  example,  a  house  and  a  vessel  of  a 
value  so  perfectly  equal  that  their  proprietors  are 
disposed  to  exchange  them  even-handed,  without 
excess  or  abatement.  In  fact  let  the  bargain  be 
settled  by  a  lawyer.  At  the  moment  of  each 
taking  possession,  the  ship-owner  says  to  the  house- 
owner,  "  Yery  well ;  the  transaction  is  completed, 
and  nothing  can  prove  its  perfect  equity  better 
than  our  free  and  voluntary  consent.  Our  con- 
ditions thus  fixed,  I  will  propose  to  you  a  little 
practical  modification.  You  shall  let  me  have 
your  house  to-day,  but  I  will  not  put  you  in  pos- 
session of  my  ship  for  a  year ;  and  the  reason  I 
make  this  demand  of  you  is,  that,  during  this 


22  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

year  of  delay ^  I  wish  to  use  the  vesseL"  That 
we  may  not  be  embarrassed  by  considerations  rel- 
ative to  the  deterioration  of  the  thin^^  lent,  I  will 
suppose  the  ship-owner  to  add,  "  I  will  engage,  at 
the  end  of  the  year,  to  hand  over  to  you  the  ves- 
sel in  the  state  in  which  it  is  to-day."  I  ask  of 
every  candid  man,  if  the  house-owner  has  not  a 
right  to  answer,  "  The  new  clause  which  you  pro- 
pose entirely  alters  the  proportion  or  the  equal 
value  of  the  exchanged  services.  By  it  I  shall  be 
deprived,  for  the  space  of  a  year,  both  at  once  of 
my  house  and  of  your  vessel.  By  it  you  will 
make  use  of  both.  If,  in  the  absence  of  this 
clause,  the  bargain  was  just,  for  tlie  same  reason 
the  clause  is  injurious  to  me.  It  stipulates  for  a 
loss  to  me,  and  a  gain  to  you.  You  are  requir- 
ing of  me  a  new  service ;  I  have  a  right  to  refuse, 
or  to  require  of  you,  as  a  compensation,  an  equiva- 
lent service."  If  the  parties  are  agreed  upon  this 
compensation,  the  principle  of  which  is  incon- 
testable, we  can  easily  distinguish  two  transac- 
tions in  one,  two  exchanges  of  service  in  one. 
First,  there  is  the  exchange  of-  the  house  for 
the  vessel ;  after  this,  there  is  the  delay  granted 
by  one  of  the  parties,  and  the  compensation  cor- 
responding to  this  delay  yielded  by  the  other. 
These  two  new  services  take  the  generic  and  ab- 
stract names  of  credit  and  interest    But  names 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  23 

do  not  change  the  nature  of  things;  and  I 
defy  any  one  to  disprove  tliat  there  exists  here, 
when  all  is  done,  a  service  for  a  service,  or  a 
reciprocity  of  services.  To  say  that  one  of  these 
services  does  not  challenge  the  other,  to  say  that 
the  first  ought  to  be  rendered  gratuitously,  with- 
out injustice,  is  to  say  that  injustice  consists  in 
the  reciprocity  of  service, — that  justice  consists  in 
one  of  the  parties  giving  and  not  receiving,  which 
is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 

But,  to  give  an  idea  of  interest  and  its  mechan- 
ism, allow  me  to  make  use  of  two  or  three  anec- 
dotes. But,  first,  I  must  say  a  few  words  upon 
capital. 

WHAT  IS  CAPITAL? 

There  are  some  persons  who  imagine  that  capi- 
tal is  money,  and  this  is  precisely  the  reason  why 
they  deny  its  productiveness  ;  for,  as  John  Ruskin 
and  others  say,  dollars  are  not  endowed  with  the 
power  of  reproducing  themselves.  But  it  is  not 
true  that  capital  and  money  are  the  same  thing. 
Before  the  discovery  of  the  precious  metals,  there 
were  capitalists  in  the  world  ;  and  I  venture  to  say 
that  at  that  time,  as  now,  everybody  was  a  capi- 
talist, to  a  certain  extent. 

What  is  capital,  then  ?  It  is  composed  of  three 
things : — 


24t  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

1st.  Of  the  materials  upon  which  men  operate, 
when  these  materials  have  already  a  value  com- 
municated by  human  effort,  which  has  bestowed 
upon  them  the  property  of  exchangeability — wool, 
flax,  leather,  silk,  wood,  etc. 

2d.  Instruments  which  are  used  for  workino: 
— tools,  machines,  ships,  carriages,  etc. 

3d.  Provisions  which  are  consumed  during 
labor — victuals,  stuffs,  houses,  etc. 

Without  these  things  the  labor  of  man  would 
be  unproductive  and  almost  void  ;  yet  these  very 
things  have  required  much  work,  especially  at 
first.  This  is  the  reason  that  so  much  value  has 
been  attached  to  the  possession  of  them,  and  also 
that  it  is  perfectly  lawful  to  exchange  and  to  sell 
them,  to  make  a  profit  off  them  if  used,  to  gain 
remuneration  from  them  if  lent. 

Kow  for  my  anecdotes. 

THE  SACK  OF  CORN? 

William,  in  other  respects  as  poor  as  Job,  and 
obliged  to  earn  his  bread  by  day -labor,  became, 
nevertheless,  by  some  inheritance,  the  owner  of  a 
fine  piece  of  imcultivated  land.  He  was  exceed- 
ingly anxious  to  cultivate  it.  "  Alas !  "  said  he, 
*'to  make  ditches,  to  raise  fences,  to  break  the 
soil,  to  clear  away  the  brambles  and  stones,  to 
plow  it,  to  sow  it,  might  bring  me  a  living  in  a 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  25 

year  or  two  ;  but  certainly  not  to-day,  or  to-mor- 
row. It  is  impossible  to  set  about  farming  it, 
without  previously  saving  some  provisions  for  my 
subsistence  until  the  harvest ;  and  I  know,  by  ex- 
perience, that  preparatory  labor  is  indispensable 
in  order  to  render  present  labor  productive." 
Tiie  good  William  was  not  content  with  making 
these  reflections.  He  resolved  to  work  by  the 
day,  and  to  save  something  from  his  w^ages  to  buy 
a  spade  and  a  sack  of  corn,  without  which  things 
he  must  give  up  his  agricultural  projects.  He 
acted  so  well,  was  so  active  and  steady,  that  he 
soon  saw  himself  in  possession  of  the  wished-for 
sack  of  corn.  "  I  shall  have  enough  to  live  upon 
till  ray  field  is  covered  with  a  rich  harvest.''  Just 
as  he  was  starting,  David  came  to  borrow  his 
accumulation  of  food  of  him.  "If  you  will  lend 
me  this  sack  of  corn,"  said  David,  "  you  will  do 
me  a  great  service  ;  for  I  have  some  very  lucra- 
tive work  in  view,  which  I  cannot  possibly  under- 
take, for  want  of  provisions  to  live  upon  till  it  is 
finished."  "  I  was  in  the  same  case,"  answered 
William  ;  "  and  if  I  have  now  secured  bread  for 
several  months,  it  is  at  the  expense  of  my  arms 
and  my  stomach.  Upon  what  principle  of  justice 
can  it  be  devoted  to  the  carrying  out  of  your  en- 
terprise instead  of  mine  f  " 

You  may  well  believe  that  the  bargain  was  a 
2 


26  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

long  one.  However,  it  was  finished  at  length, 
and  on  these  conditions : — 

First — David  promised  to  give  back,  at  the 
end  of  the  year,  a  sack  of  corn  of  the  same 
quality,  and  of  the  same  weight,  without  missing 
a  single  grain.  "  This  first  clause  is  perfectly 
just,"  said  he,  "for  without  it  William  would 
give^  and  not  lend,''* 

Secondly — He  further  engaged  to  deliver  one- 
half  bushel  of  corn  for  every  five  bushels  origin- 
ally horrowed^  when  the  loan  was  returned.  "  This 
clause  is  no  less  just  than  the  other,"  thought  he  ; 
"  for  unless  William  would  do  me  a  service  with- 
out compensation,  he  would  inflict  upon  himself 
a  privation — lie  would  renounce  his  cherished  en- 
terprise— he  would  enable  me  to  accomplish  mine 
— he  would  cause  me  to  enjoy  for  a  year  the 
fruits  of  his  savings,  and  all  this  gratuitously. 
Since  he  delays  the  cultivation  of  his  land,  since 
he  enables  me  to  prosecute  a  lucrative  employ- 
ment, it  is  quite  natural  that  I  should  let  him 
partake,  in  a  certain  proportion,  of  the  profits 
which  I  shall  gain  by  the  sacrifice  he  makes  of  his 
own  profits." 

On  his  side,  William,  who  was  something  of  a 
scholar,  made  this  calculation  : — "  Since,  by  vir- 
tue of  the  first  clause,  the  sack  of  corn  will  return 
to  me  at  the  end  of  a  year,"  he  said  to  himself, 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  27 

"  I  shall  be  able  to  lend  it  again  ;  it  will  return 
to  me  at  the  end  of  the  second  year ;  I  may  lend 
it  again,  and  so  on,  to  all  eternity.  However,  I 
cannot  deny  that  it  will  have  been  eaten  long  ago. 
It  is  singular  that  I  should  be  perpetually  the 
owner  of  a  sack  of  corn,  although  the  one  I  have 
lent  has  been  consumed  forever.  But  this  is  ex- 
plained thus  : — It  will  be  consumed  in  the  service 
of  David.  It  will  put  it  into  the  power  of 
David  to  produce  a  greater  value ;  and  conse- 
quently, David  will  be  able  to  restore  me  a  sack 
of  corn,  or  the  value  of  it,  without  having  suffered 
the  slightest  injury  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  having 
gained  from  the  use  of  it.  And  as  regards  myself, 
this  value  ought  to  be  my  property,  as  long  as  I 
do  not  consume  it  myself.  If  I  had  used  it  to 
clear  my  land,  I  should  have  received  it  again  in 
the  form  of  a  fine  harvest.  Instead  of  that,  I 
lend  it,  and  shall  recover  it  in  the  form  of  repay- 
ment. 

"  From  the  second  clause,  I  gain  another  piece 
of  information.  At  the  end  of  the  year  I  shall 
be  in  possession  of  one  bushel  of  corn  for  every 
ten  that  I  may  lend.  If,  then,  I  were  to  con- 
tinue to  work  by  the  day,  and  to  save  part  of  ray 
wages,  as  I  have  been  doing,  in  the  course  of 
time  I  should  be  able  to  lend  two  sacks  of  corn ; 
then  three  ;   then  four ;  and  when  I  should  have 


28  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

gained  a  sufficient  number  to  enable  me  to  live  on 
these  additions  of  a  half  a  bushel  over  and  above 
and  on  account  of  every  ten  bushels  lent,  I  shall 
be  at  liberty  to  take  a  little  repose  in  my  old 
ao:e.  But  how  is  this  ?  In  this  case,  shall  I  not 
be  living  at  the  expense  of  others  ?  No,  cer- 
tainly, for  it  has  been  proved  that  in  lending  I 
perform  a  service  ;  I  make  more  profitable  the 
labor  of  my  borrowers,  and  only  deduct  a  trifling 
part  of  the  excess  of  production,  due  to  my  lend- 
ings  and  savings.  It  is  a  marvelous  thing  that 
a  man  may  thus  realize  a  leisure  which  injures  no 
one,  and  for  which  he  cannot  be  reproached  with- 
out injustice." 

THE  HOUSE. 

Again,  Thomas  had  a  house.  In  building  it, 
he  had  extorted  nothing  from  any  one  whatever. 
He  obtained  it  by  his  own  personal  labor,  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  by  the  labor  of  others 
justly  rewarded.  His  first  care  was  to  make  a 
bargain  with  an  architect,  in  virtue  of  which,  on 
condition  of  the  payment  of  a  hundred  dollars  a 
year,  the  latter  engaged  to  keep  the  house  in  con- 
stant good  repair.  Thomas  was  already  congratu- 
lating himself  on  the  happy  days  which  he  hoped 
to  spend  in  this  pleasant  home,  which  our  laws 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  29 

declared  to  be  liis  own  exclusive  property.     But 
Kicliard  wished  to  use  it  also  as  his  residence. 

"  How  can  you  think  of  such  a  thing  ? "  said 
Thomas  to  Eichard.  "  It  is  I  who  have  built  it ; 
it  has  cost  me  ten  years  of  painful  labor,  and  now 
you  would  come  in  and  take  it  for  your  enjoy- 
ment ? "  They  agreed  to  refer  the  matter  to 
judges.  They  chose  no  profound  economists — 
there  were  none  such  in  the  country.  But  they 
found  some  just  and  sensible  men ;  it  all  comes 
to  the  same  thing ;  political  economy,  justice, 
good  sense,  are  all  the  same  thing.  And  here  is 
the  decision  made  by  the  judges : — If  Richard 
wishes  to  occupy  Thomas's  house  for  a  year,  he 
is  bound  to  submit  to  three  conditions.  The 
first  is  to  quit  at  the  end  of  the  year,  and  to 
restore  the  house  in  good  repair,  saving  the  inevi- 
table decay  resulting  from  mere  duration.  The 
second,  to  refund  to  Thomas  the  one  hundred  dol- 
lars which  Thomas  pays  annually  to  the  architect 
to  repair  the  injuries  of  time ;  for  these  injuries 
taking  place  whilst  the  house  is  in  the  service  of 
Eichard,  it  is  perfectly  just  that  he  should  bear 
the  expense.  The  third,  that,  he  should  render  to 
Thomas  a  service  equivalent  to  that  which  he 
receives.  And  as  to  what  sliall  constitute  this 
equivalence  of  services,  this  must  be  left  for 
Thomas  and  Eichard  to  mutually  agree  upon. 


30  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 


THE  PLANE. 

One  furtlier  illustration  to  the  same  effect. 
A  very  long  time  ago  there  lived,  in  a  poor 
village,  a  joiner,  who  was  a  philosopher,  as  all  my 
heroes  are  in  their  way.  James  worked  from 
morning  till  night  with  his  two  strong  arms,  but 
his  brain  was  not  idle  for  all  that.  He  was  fond 
of  reviewing  his  actions,  their  causes,  and  their 
effects.  He  sometimes  said  to  himself,  "  With  my 
hatchet,  my  saw,  and  my  hammer,  I  can  make 
only  coarse  furniture,  and  can  only  get  the  pay 
for  such.  If  I  only  had  a  jplane,  I  should  please 
my  customers  more,  and  they  would  pay  me 
more.  But  this  is  all  right ;  I  can  only  expect  ser- 
vices proportioned  to  those  which  I  render  myself. 
Yes!  I  am  resolved,  I  will  make  myself  2^ jplaneP 
\  However,  just  as  he  was  setting  to  work,  James 
reflected  further  : — "  I  work  for  my  customers  300 
days  in  the  year.  If  I  give  ten  to  making  my 
plane,  supposing  it  lasts  me  a  year,  only  290  days 
will  remain  for  me  to  make  my  furniture.  Now, 
in  order  that  I  be  not  the  loser  in  this  matter,  I 
must  gain  henceforth,  with  the  help  of  the  plane, 
as  much  in  290  days  as  I  now  do  in  300.  I  musf 
even  gain  more ;  for  unless  I  do  so,  it  would  not 
be  worth  my  while  to  venture  upon  any  innova- 
tions."    James  began  to  calculate.    He  satisfied 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  31 

himself  that  he  should  sell  his  finished  furniture 
at  a  price  which  would  amply  compensate  him  for 
the  ten  days  devoted  to  the  plane  ;  and  when  no 
doubt  remained  in  his  mind  on  this  point,  he  set 
to  work.  I  beg  the  reader  to  remark,  that  the 
power  which  exists  in  the  tool  to  increase  the 
productiveness  of  labor,  is  the  basis  for  the  suc- 
cessful solution  of  the  experiment  which  James 
the  joiner  proposed  to  make. 

At  the  end  of  ten  days,  James  had  in  his  pos- 
session an  admirable  plane,  which  he  valued  all 
the  more  for  having  made  it  himself.  He  danced 
for  joy, — for,  like  the  girl  with  her  basket  of 
eggs,  he  reckoned  in  anticipation  all  the  profits 
which  he  expected  to  derive  from  the  ingenious 
instrument ;  but,  more  fortunate  than  she,  he  was 
not  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  saying  good-by, 
when  the  eggs  were  smashed,  to  the  expected  calf, 
cow,  pig,  as  w^ell  as  the  eggs,  together.  He  was 
building  his  fine  castles  in  the  air,  when  he  was  in- 
terrupted by  his  acquaintance  "William,  a  joiner 
in  the  neighboring  village.  William  having  ad- 
mired the  plane,  w^as  struck  with  the  advantages 
which  might  be  gained  from  it.  He  said  to 
James : — 

W.  You  must  do  me  a  service. 

«/.  "What  service  ? 

W.  Lend  me  the  plane  for  a  year. 


32  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

As  might  be  expected,  James  at  tliis  proposal 
did  not  fail  to  cry  out,  "  How  can  you  think  of 
such  a  thing,  William  ?  But  if  I  do  you  this 
service,  what  will  you  do  for  me  in  return  ? " 

W.  ^N'othing.  Don't  you  know  that  John  Rug- 
kin  says  a  loan  ought  to  be  gratuitous  ?  Don't 
you  know  that  Prudhon  and  other  notable  writers 
and  friends  of  the  laboring  classes  assert  that 
capital  is  naturally  nnproductive?  Don't  you 
known  that  all  the  new  school  of  liberal  advanced 
writers  say  we  ought  to  have  perfect  fraternity 
among  men  ?  If  you  only  do  me  a  service  for 
the  sake  of  receiving  one  from  me  in  return, 
what  merit  would  you  have  ? 

J.  William,  my  friend,  fraternity  does  not  mean 
that  all  the  sacrifices  are  to  be  on  one  side  ;  if  so, 
I  do  not  see  why  they  should  not  be  on  yours. 
Whether  a  loan  should  be  gratuitous  I  don't  know; 
but  I  do  know  that  if  I  were  to  lend  you  my 
plane  for  a  year  it  wo.uld  be  giving  it  you.  To 
tell  you  the  truth,  that  was  not  what  I  made  it 
for. 

W.  Well,  we  will  say  nothing  about  the  mod- 
ern maxims  discovered  by  the  friends  of  the  work- 
ing classes.  I  ask  you  to  do  me  a  service ;  what 
service  do  you  ask  me  in  return  ? 

tT,  rirst,  then,  in  a  year  the  plane  will  be  used 
up,  it  will  be  good  for  nothing.     It  is  only  just 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  33 

that  you  slionld  let  me  have  another  exactly  like 
it ;  or  that  you  should  give  me  money  enough  to 
get  it  repaired ;  or  that  you  should  supply  me  the 
ten  days  which  I  must  devote  to  replacing  it. 

W.  This  is  perfectly  just.  I  submit  to  these 
conditions.  I  engage  to  return  it,  or  to  let  you 
have  one  like  it,  or  the  value  of  the  same.  I  think 
you  must  be  satisfied  with  this,  and  can  require 
nothing  further. 

«/.  I  think  otherwise.  I  made  the  plane  for 
myself,  and  not  for  you.  I  expected  to  gain 
some  advantage  from  it,  by  my  work  being  better 
finished  and  better  paid  ;  by  improving  my  con- 
dition. What  reason  is  there  that  I  should 
make  the  plane,  and  you  should  gain  the  profit? 
I  might  as  well  ask  you  to  give  me  your  saw  and 
hatchet !  What"  a  confusion  !  Is  it  not  natural 
that  each  should  keep  what  he  has  made  with 
his  own  hands,  as  well  as  his  hands  themselves  ? 
To  use  without  recompense  the  hands  of  another, 
I  call  slavery ;  to  use  without  recompense  the 
plane  of  another,  can  this  be  called  fraternity?   • 

W,  But,  then,  I  have  agreed  to  return  it  to  you 
at  the  end  of  a  year,  as  well  polished  and  as  sharp 
as  it  is  now. 

J.  "We  have  nothing  to  do  with  next  year  ;  we 
are  speaking  of  this  year.  I  have  made  the  plane 
for  the  sake  of  im^Droving  my  work  and  condition ; 


34  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

if  you  merely  return  it  to  me  in  a  year,  it  is  you 
who  will  gain  the  profit  of  it  during  the  whole  of 
that  time.  I  am  not  bound  to  do  you  such  a  ser- 
vice without  receiving  anything  from  you  in  re- 
turn ;  therefore,  if  you  wish  for  my  plane,  inde- 
pendently of  the  entire  restoration  already  bar- 
gained for,  you  must  do  me  a  service  which  we  will 
now  discuss ;  you  must  grant  me  remuneration. 

And  this  was  what  the  two  finally  agreed 
upon  : — William  granted  a  remuneration  calcula- 
ted in  sach  a  way  that,  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
James  received  his  plane  quite  new,  and  in  addi- 
tion a  new  plank,  as  a  compensation  for  the  ad- 
vantages of  which  he  had  deprived  himself  in 
lending  the  plane  to  his  friend. 

It  was  impossible  for  any  one  acquainted  with 
the  transaction  to  discover  the  slightest  trace  in  it 
of  oppression  or  injustice. 

The  singular  part  of  it  is,  that,  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  the  plane  came  into  James's  possession,  and 
he  lent  it  again;  recovered  it,  and  lent  it  a  third 
and  fourth  time.  It  has  passed  into  the  hands  of 
his  son,  who  still  lends  it.  Poor  plane  !  how  many 
times  has  it  changed,  sometimes  its  blade,  some- 
times its  handle.  It  is  no  longer  the  same  plane, 
but  it  has  always  the  same  value,  at  least  for 
James's  posterity.  Workmen  ;  let  us  examine 
into  these  little  stories. 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEKEST.  35 

I  maintain,  first  of  all,  that  the  sacJc  of  corn  and 
\\iQ  jplane  are  here  the  type,  tlie  model,  a  faithful 
representation,  the  symbol  of  all  capital ;  as  the 
half  bushel  of  corn  and  the  plank  are  the  type,  the 
model,  the  representation,  the  symbol  of  all  in- 
terest. This  granted,  the  following  are,  it  seems 
to  me,  a  series  of  consequences,  the  justice  of 
which  it  is  impossible  to  dispute. 

1st.  If  the  yielding  of  a  plank  by  the  borrower 
to  the  lender  is  a  natural,  equitable,  lawful  remu- 
neration, the  just  price  of  a  real  service,  we  may 
conclude  that,  as  a  general  rule,  it  is  in  the  nature 
of  capital  when  loaned  or  used  to  produce  interest. 
When  this  capital,  as  in  the  foregoing  examples, 
takes  the  form  of  an  instrument  of  labor,  it  is 
clear  enough  that  it  ought  to  bring  an  advan- 
tage to  its  possessor,  to  him  who  has  devoted  to  it 
his  time,  his  brains,  and  his  strength.  Otherwise, 
why  should  behave  made  it  ?  l^o  necessity  of  life 
can  be  immediately  satisfied  with  instruments  of 
labor ;  no  one  eats  planes  or  drinks  saws,  except, 
indeed,  he  be  a  conjuror.  If  a  man  determines  to 
spend  his  time  in  the  production  of  such  things, 
he  must  have  been  led  to  it  by  the  consideration 
of  the  increased  power  which  these  instruments 
give  to  him ;  of  tlie  time  which  they  save  him  ; 
of  the  perfection  and  rapidity  which  they  give  to 
his  labor ;  in  a  word,  of  the  advantages  wliich 


36  CAPITAL  AND   INTEKEST. 

tliey  procure  for  liim.  'Now,  these  advantages, 
which  have  been  obtained'  by  labor,  by  the  sac- 
rifice of  time  which  might  have  been  used  for 
other  purposes,  are  we  bound,  as  soon  as  they  are 
ready  to  be  enjoyed,  to  confer  gratuitously  upon 
another  ?  AVoiild  it  be  an  advance  in  social 
order  if  the  law  decided  thus,  and  citizens  should 
pay  officials  for  causing  such  a  law  to  be  executed 
by  force?  1  venture  to  say  that  there  is  not  one 
amongst  you  who  would  support  it.  It  would  be 
to  legalize,  to  organize,  to  systematize  injustice 
itself,  for  it  would  be  proclaiming  that  there  are 
men  born  to  render,  and  others  born  to  receive, 
gratuitous  services.  Grant,  then,  that  interest  is 
just,  natural,  and  expedient. 

2d.  A  second  consequence,  not  less  remarka- 
ble than  the  former,  and,  if  possible,  still  more 
conclusive,  to  which  I  call  your  attention,  is 
this : — Inte7'est  is  not  injurious  to  the  horroicer. 
I  mean  to  say,  the  obligation  in  which  the  bor- 
rower finds  himself,  to  pay  a  remuneration  for 
use  of  capital,  cannot  do  any  harm  to  his  condi- 
tion. Observe,  in  fact,  that  James  and  William 
are  perfectly  free,  as  regards  the  transaction  to 
which  the  plane  gave  occasion.  The  transaction 
cannot  be  accomplished  without  the  consent  of 
one  as  well  as  of  the  other.  The  worst  which  can 
happen  is,  that  James  may  be  too  exacting ;  and 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  37 

in  this  case,  William,  refusing  tlie  loan,  remains 
as  be  was  before.  By  the  fact  of  bis  agreeing  to 
borrow,  be  proves  that  be  considers  it  an  advan- 
tage to  bimself ;  be  proves,  tbat  after  every  cal- 
culation, whatever  may  be  the  remuneration  or 
interest  required  of  bim,  be  still  finds  it  more 
profitable  to  borrow  tban  not  to  borrow.  lie 
only  determines  to  do  so  because  be  bas  com- 
pared the  inconveniences  with  the  advantages. 
He  has  calculated  that  the  day  on  which  he  re- 
turns the  plane,  accompanied  by  the  remunera- 
tion agreed  upon,  he  will  have  effected  more 
work,  with  the  same  labor,  thanks  to  this  toal. 
A  profit  will  remain  to  him,  otherwise  he  would 
not  have  borrowed.  The  tM^o  services  of  which 
we  are  speaking  are  exchanged  according  to  the 
law  which  governs  all  exchanges,  the  law  of  sup- 
ply and  demand.  The  claims  of  James  have  a 
natural  and  impassable  limit.  This  is  the  point 
in  which  the  remuneration  demanded  by  him 
would  absorb  all  the  advantage  which  William 
might  find  in  making  use  of  a  plane.  In  this 
case,  the  borrowing  would  not  take  place.  Wil- 
liam would  be  bound  either  to  make  a  plane  for 
himself,  or  do  without  one,  which  would  leave 
him  in  his  original  condition.  He  borrows,  be- 
cause he  gains  by  borrowing.  I  know  very  well 
\vhat  will  be  told  me.     You  will  say,  William  may 


38  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

be  deceived,  or,  perhaps,  he  may  be  governed  by 
necessity,  and  be  obliged  to  submit  to  a  harsli  law. 

It  may  be  so.  As  to  errors  in  calculation,  they 
belong  to  the  infirmity  of  our  nature,  and  to 
argue  from  this  against  the  transaction  in  ques- 
tion, is  objecting  the  possibility  of  loss  in  all  im- 
aginable transactions,  in  every  human  act.  Error 
is  an  accidental  fact,  which  is  incessantly  reme- 
died by  experience.  In  short,  everybody  must 
guard  against  it.  As  far  as  those  hard  necessi- 
ties are  concerned,  which  force  persons  to  borrow 
imder  onerous  conditions,  it  is  clear  that  these 
necessities  existed  previously  to  the  borrowing.  If 
William  is  in  a  situation  in  which  he  cannot  possi- 
bly do  without  a  plane,  and  must  borrow  one  at  any 
pi'ice,  does  this  situation  result  from  James  hav- 
ing taken  the  trouble  to  make  the  tool  ?  Does  it 
not  exist  independently  of  this  circumstance  ? 
However  harsh,  however  severe  James  may  be, 
he  will  never  render  the  supposed  condition  of 
"William  worse  than  it  is.  Morallj^,  it  is  true,  the 
leader  will  be  to  blame  if  he  demands  more  than 
is  just ;  but,  in  an  economical  point  of  view,  the 
loan  itself  can  never  be  considered  responsible 
for  previous  necessities,  which  it  has  not  created, 
and  which  it  relieves  to  a  certain  extent. 

But  this  proves  something  to  which  I  shall  re- 
turn.    It  is  evidently  for  the  interest  of  William, 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  39 

representing  here  the  borrowers,  that  there  shall 
be  many  Jameses  and  planes,  or,  in  other  words, 
lenders  and  capitals.  It  is  very  evident,  that  if 
William  can  say  to  James,  "  Your  demands  are 
exorbitant;  there  is  no  lack  of  planes  in  the 
world ;  "  he  will  be  in  a  better  situation  than  if 
James's  plane  was  the  only  one  he  could  borrow. 
Assuredly,  there  is  no  maxim  more  true  than  this 
— service  for  service.  But  let  us  not  forget  that 
no  service  has  a  fixed  and  absolute  value,  com- 
pared with  others.  The  contracting  parties  are 
free.  Each  carries  his  requisitions  to  the  farthest 
possible  point,  and  the  most  favorable  circum- 
stance for  these  requisitions  is  the  absence  of 
rivalship.  Hence  it  follows  that  if  there  is  a 
class  of  men  more  interested  than  any  other  in  the 
creation,  multiplication,  and  abundance  of  capitals, 
it  is  mainly  that  of  the  borrowers.  Now,  since 
capitals  can  only  be  formed  and  increased  by  the 
stimulus  and  the  prospedt  of  remuneration,  let  this 
class  understand  the  injury  they  are  inflicting  on 
themselves  when  they  deny  the  lawlessness  of  in- 
terest, when  they  proclaim  that  credit  should  be 
gratuitous,  when  they  declaim  against  the  pre- 
tended tyranny  of  capital,  when  tliey  discourage 
saving,  thus  forcing  capital  to  become  scarce,  and 
consequently  interest  to  rise. 

3d.  The  anecdote  I  have  just  related  enables 


40  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

you  to  explain  this  apparently  singular  pheno- 
menon, which  is  termed  the  duration  or  perpe- 
tuity of  interest.  Since,  in  lending  his  plane, 
James  has  been  able,  very  lawfully,  to  make  it  a 
condition  that  it  should  be  returned  to  him,  at  the 
end  of  a  year,  in  the  same  state  in  which  it  was 
when  he  lent  it,  is  it  not  evident  that  he  may,  at 
the  expiration  of  the  term,  lend  it  again  on  the 
same  conditions?  If  he  resolves  upon  the  latter 
plan,  the  plane  will  return  to  him  at  the  end  of 
every  year,  and  that  without  end.  James  will 
then  be  in  a  condition  to  lend  without  end;  that 
is,  he  may  derive  from  it  a  perpetual  interest.  It 
will  be  said,  that  the  plane  will  be  worn  out. 
That  is  true  ;  but  it  will  be  worn  out  by  the  hand 
and  for  the  profit  of  the  borrower.  The  latter 
has  taken  this  gradual  wear  into  account,  and 
taken  upon  himself,  as  he  ought,  the  consequences, 
lie  has  reckoned  that  he  shall  derive  from  this 
tool  an  advantage  which  will  allow  him  to  restore 
it  in  its  original  condition,  after  having  realized 
a  profit  from  it.  As  long  as  James  does  not  use 
this  capital  himself,  or  for  his  own  advantage — as 
long  as  he  renounces  the  advantages  which  allow 
it  to  be  restored  to  its  original  condition — he  will 
have  an  incontestable  right  to  have  it  restored, 
and  that  independently  of  interest. 

Observe,  besides,  that  if,  as  I  believe  1  have 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  41 

shown,  James,  far  from  doing  any  liarni  to  Wil- 
liam, has  done  him  a  service  in  lending  him  his 
phine  for  a  year;  for  the  same  reason,  he  will  do 
no  harm  to  a  second,  a  third,  a  fourth  borrower, 
in  the  subsequent  periods.  Hence  you  may  un- 
derstand that  the  interest  of  a  capital  is  as  natural, 
as  lawful,  as  useful,  in  the  thousandth  year,  as  in 
the  first.  We  may  go  still  further.  It  may  hap- 
pen that  James  lends  more  than  a  single  plane. 
It  is  possible,  that  by  means  of  working,  of  sav- 
ing, of  privations,  of  order,  of  activity,  he  may 
come  to  be  able  to  lend  a  multitude  of  planes  and 
saws  ;  that  is  to  say,  to  do  a  multitude  of  services. 
I  insist  upon  this  point, — that  if  the  first  loan  has 
been  a  social  good,  it  wnll  be  the  same  with  all 
the  others;  for  they  are  all  similar,  and  based 
upon  the  same  principle.  It  may  happen,  then, 
that  the  amount  of  all  the  remnnerations  received 
by  our  honest  operative,  in  exchange  for  services 
rendered  by  him,  may  suffice  to  maintain  him. 
In  this  case,  there  will  be  a  man  in  the  world 
who  has  a  right  to  live  without  w^orking.  I  do 
not  say  that  he  would  be  doing  right  to  give  him- 
self up  to  idleness — but  I  say,  that  he  has  a  right 
to  do  so ;  and  if  he  does  so,  it  w^ill  be  at  nobody's 
expense,  but  quite  the  contrary.  If  society  at  all 
understands  the  nature  of  things,  it  w^ill  acknowl- 
edge that  this  man  subsists  on  services  which  he 


42  CAPITAL  AND  INTEKEST. 

receives  certainly  (as  we  all  do),  but  wliicli  lie 
receives  lawfully  in  exchange  for  other  services, 
which  he  himself  has  rendered,  that  he  continues 
to  render,  and  which  are  real  services,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  freely  and  voluntarily  accepted. 

And  here  we  have  a  glimpse  of  one  of  the  finest 
harmonies  in  the  social  word.  I  allude  to  leisure  : 
not  that  leisure  that  the  warlike  and  tyrannical 
classes  arrange  for  themselves  by  the  plunder  of 
the  workers,  but  that  leisure  which  is  the  lawful 
and  innocent  fruit  of  past  activity  and  economy. 
In  expressing  myself  thus,  I  know  that  I  shall 
shock  many  received  ideas.  But  see!  Is  not 
leisure  an  essential  spring  in  the  social  machine  ? 
"Without  it  the  world  would  never  have  had  a 
Newton,  a  Pascal,  a  Fenelon ;  mankind  would 
have  been  ignorant  of  all  arts,  sciences,  and  of 
those  wonderful  inventions  prepared  originally  by 
investigations  of  mere  curiosity ;  thought  would 
have  been  inert — man  would  have  made  no  prog- 
ress.*   On  the  other  hand,  if  leisure  could  only  be 

*  "  Of  all  the  results  wliicli  are  produced  among  a  people 
by  their  climate,  food,  and  soil,  the  accumulation  of  wealth 
(capital)  is  the  earliest,  and  in  many  respects  the  most  im- 
portant. For  although  the  progress  of  knowledge  eventu- 
ally accelerates  the  increase  of  wealth,  it  is  nevertheless  cer- 
tain that,  in  the  first  formation  of  society,  the  wealth  must 
accumulate  before  the  knowledge  can  begin.  As  long  as 
every  man  is  engaged  in  collecting  the  materials  necessary 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  43 

explained  by  plunder  and  oppression — if  it  were 
a  benefit  which  could  only  be  enjoyed  nnjustly, 
and  at  the  expense  of  others,  there  would  be  no 
middle  path  between  these  two  evils;  either  man- 
kind w^ould  be  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  stag- 
nating in  a  vegetable  and  stationary  life,  in  eternal 
ignorance,  from  the  absence  of  wheels  to  its  ma- 
chine—or else  it  would  have  to  acquire  these 
wheels  at  the  price  of  inevitable  injustice,  and 
would  necessarily  present  the  sad  spectacle,  in  one 
form  or  other,  of  the  ancient  classification  of  hu- 
man beings  into  masters  and  slaves.  I  defy  any 
one  to  show  me,  in  this  case,  any  other  alterna- 
tive. We  should  be  compelled  to  contemplate 
the  Divine  plan  wdiich  governs  society,  w4th  the 
regret  of  thinking  that  it  presents  a  deplorable 
chasm.  The  stimulus  of  progress  would  be  for- 
gotten, or,  which  is  worse,  this  stimulus  would  be 
no  other  than  injustice  itself.  But  no  !  God  has 
not  left  such  a  chasm  in  His  work  of  love.  We 
must  take  care  not  to  disregard  His  wisdom  and 
power;    for   those  whose  imperfect   meditations 

for  his  own  subsistence,  there  will  be  neither  leisure  nor 
taste  for  higher  pursuits.  But  if  the  produce  is  greater  than 
consumption,  an  overplus  arises,  by  means  of  which  men 
can  use  what  they  did  not  produce,  and  are  thus  enabled  to 
devote  themselves  to  subjects  for  which  at  an  earlier  period 
the  pressure  of  their  daily  wants  would  liave  left  them  no 
time." — Buckle's  Ulstory  of  Civilization. 


4:4:  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

cannot  explain  the  lawfulness  of  leisure,  are  very 
much  like  the  astronomer  who  said,  at  a  certain 
point  in  the  heavens  there  onglit  to  exist  a  planet 
which  will  be  at  last  discovered,  for  Avithout  it  the 
celestial  world  is  not  harmony,  but  discord. 

Therefore,  I  say  that,  if  well  understood,  the 
history  of  my  humble  i^lane,  although  very  mod- 
est, is  sufficient  to  raise  us  to  tlie  contemplation 
of  one  of  the  most  consoling,  but  least  understood 
of  the  social  harmonies. 

It  is  not  true  that  we  must  choose  between  the 
denial  or  the  unlawfulness  of  leisure;  thanks  to 
rent  and  its  natural  duration,  leisure  may  arise 
from  labor  and  saving.  It  is  a  pleasing  prospect, 
which  every  one  may  have  in  view ;  a  noble  re- 
compense, to  which  each  may  aspire.  It  makes 
its  appearance  in  the  world ;  it  distributes  itself 
proportion  ably  to  the  exercise  of  certain  virtues ; 
it  opens  all  the  avenues  to  intelligence  ;  it  enno- 
bles, it  raises  the  morals ;  it  spiritualizes  the  soul 
of  humanity,  not  only  without  laying  any  weight 
on  those  of  our  brethren  whose  lot  in  life  makes 
severe  labor  necessary,  but  it  relieves  them  grad- 
ually from  the  heaviest  and  most  "repugnant  part 
of  this  labor.  It  is  enough  that  capitals  should 
be  formed,  accumulated,  multiplied';  should  bo 
lent  on  conditions  less  and  less  burdensome ;  that 
they  should  descend,  penetrate  into  every  social 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  45 

circle,  and  that  by  an  admirable  progression,  after 
luiving  liberated  the  lenders  from  onerous  toil, 
tliev  should  brinoj  a  similar  liberation  to  the  bor- 
rowers  themselves.  For  that  end,  the  laws  and 
customs  ought  all  to  be  favorable  to  economy,  the 
source  of  capital.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  the 
first  of  all  these  conditions  is,  not  to  alarm,  to 
attack,  to  deny  that  which  is  the  stimulus  of  sav- 
ing and  the  reason  of  its  existence — interest. 

As  long  as  we  see  nothing  passing  from  hand 
to  hand,  in  the  operations  of  loan,  hwt provisions, 
materials,  instruments,  things  indispensable  to 
the  productiveness  of  labor  itself,  the  ideas  thus 
far  exhibited  will  not  find  many  opponents.  Who 
knows,  even,  that  I  may  not  be  reproached  for 
having  made  a  great  effort  to  burst  what  may  be 
said  to  be  an  open  door.*  But  as  soon  as  money 
makes  its  appearance  as  the  subject  of  the  trans- 
action (and  it  is  this  which  appears  almost  always), 
immediately  a  crowd  of  objections  are  raised. 
Money,  it  -will  be  said,  will  not  reproduce  itself, 
like  your  saclc  of  corn  i  it  does  not  assist  labor, 
like  your  plane  ;  it  does  not  afford  an  immediate 
satisfaction,  like  your  house.  It  is  incapable,  by 
its  nature,  of  producing  interest,  of  multiplying 
itself,  and  the  remuneration  it  demands  is  a  posi- 
tive extortion. 

"Who  cannot  see  the  sophistry  of  this  ?     Who 


46  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

does  not  see  that  money  is  only  an  instrumentality 
which  men  use  to  represent  other  values^  or  real 
objects  of  usefulness,  for  the  sole  object  of  facilitat- 
ing their  exchanges  of  commodities  or  services  ?  In 
the  midst  of  social  complications,  the  man  who  is 
in  a  condition  to  lend  scarcely  ever  has  the  exact 
thing  which  the  borrower  wants.  James,  it  is  true, 
has  a  plane  ;  but,  perhaps,  William  wants  a  saw. 
They  cannot  negotiate ;  the  transaction  favorable 
to  both  cannot  take  place,  and  then  what  happens  ? 
It  happens  that  James  first  exchanges  his  plane 
for  money ;  he  lends  the  money  to  William,  and 
William  exchanges  the  money  for  a  saw.  The 
transaction  is  no  longer  a  simple  one ;  it  is  re- 
solved into  two  transactions,  as  I  explained  above 
in  speaking  of  exchange.  But,  for  all  that,  it  has 
not  changed  its  nature ;  it  still  contains  all  the 
elements  of  a  direct  loan.  James  has  parted  with  a 
tool  which  was  useful  to  him  ;  William  has  at  the 
same  time  received  an  instrument  which  facilitates 
his  work  and  increases  his  profits ;  there  is  still 
a  service  rendered  by  the  lender,  which  entitles 
him  to  receive  an  equivalent  service  from  the  bor- 
rower ;  and  this  just  balance  is  not  the  less  estab- 
lished by  free  mutual  bargaining.  The  obvious 
natural  obligation  to  restore  at  tlie  end  of  the  term 
the  entire  value  of  what  was  borrowed  still  consti- 
tutes the  principle  of  the  rightfulness  of  interest. 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  47 

At  the  end  of  a  year,  says  M.  Thore,  will  you 
find  an  additional  dollar  in  a  bag  of  a  hundred 
dollars  ? 

JSTo,  certainly  if  the  borrower  puts  the  bag  of 
one  hundred  dollars  on  the  shelf.  In  such  a 
case,  neither  the  plane  nor  the  sack  of  corn  would 
reproduce  themselves.  But  it  is  not  for  the  sake 
of  leaving  the  money  in  the  bag,  nor  the  plane  on 
the  shelf,  that  they  are  borrowed.  The  plane  is 
borrowed  to  be  used,  or  the  money  to  procure  a 
plane.  And  if  it  is  clearly  proved  tliat  this  tool 
enables  the  borrower  to  obtain  profits  which  he 
could  not  have  made  without  it ;  if  it  is  proved 
that  the  lender  has  given  up  the  opportunity  of 
creating  for  himself  this  excess  of  profits,  we 
may  understand  how  the  stipulation  of  a  part 
of  this  excess  of  profits  in  favor  of  the  lender, 
is  equitable  and  lawful. 

Ignorance  of  the  true  part  which  money  plays 
in  human  transactions,  is  the  source  of  the  most 
fatal  errors.  From  what  we  may  infer  from 
the  writings  of  M.  Proudhon,  that  which  has 
led  him  to  think  that  gratuitous  credit  was  a 
logical  and  definite  consequence  of  social  pro- 
gress, is  the  observation  of  the  phenomenon 
that  interest  seems  to  decrease  almost  in  direct 
proportion  to  the  progress  of  civilization.  In  bar- 
barous times  it  is,  in  fact,  cent,  per  cent.,  and 


48  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

more.  Then  it  descends  to  eiglitj,  sixty,  fifty, 
fort}^,  twenty,  ten,  eight,  five,  foui-j  and  three  per 
cent.  In  Hulhmd,  it  has  even  been  as  low  as  two 
per  cent.  Hence  it  is  concluded,  that  ^'  in  propor- 
tion as  society  comes  to  perfection,  the  rate  of  in- 
terest will  diminish  and  finally  run  down  to  zero,  or 
nothing,  by  the  time  civilization  is  complete.  In 
other  words,  that  which  characterizes  social  per- 
fection is  the  gratuitousness  of  credit.  AYhen, 
therefore,  we  shall  have  abolished  interest,  we 
shall  have  reached  the  last  step  of  progress." 
This  is  mere  sophistry,  and  as  such  false  arguing 
may  contribute  to  render  popular  the  unjust,  dan- 
gerous, and  destructive  dogma  that  credit  should 
be  gratuitous,  by  representing  it  as  coincident  with 
social  perfection,  with  the  reader's  j)ermission  I 
will  examine  in  a  few  words  this  new  view  of  the 
question. 

WHAT    EECJULATES    INTEREST? 

"What  is  interest^  It  is  the  service  rendered, 
after  a  free  bargain,  by  the  borrower  to  the  lender, 
in  remuneration  for  the  service  he  has  received 
by  or  from  the  loan.  By  what  law  is  the  rate  of 
these  remunerative  services  established  ?  By  the 
general  law  which  regulates  the  equivalent  of  all 
services;  that  is,  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand. 

The  more  easily  a  thing  is  procured,  the  smaller 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  49 

is  tlie  service  rendered  by  yielding  it  or  lending  it. 
Tiie  man  who  gives  me  a  glass  of  water  among 
the  springs  of  the  mountains  does  not  render  me 
so  great  a  service  as  he  who  allows  me  one  in 
the  desert  of  Sahara.  If  there  are  many  planes, 
sacks  of  corn,  or  houses,  in  a  country,  the  use 
of  them  is  obtained,  other  things  being  equal,  on 
more  favourable  conditions  than  if  they  were  few, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  the  lender  renders  in 
this  case  a  smaller  relative  service. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  more 
abundant  capital  is,  the  lower  is  the  interest. 

Is  this  saying  that  it  will  ever  reach  zero  ? 
Ko  ;  because,  I  repeat  it,  the  principle  of  a  remu- 
neration is  in  the  loan.  To  say  that  interest  will 
be  annihilated,  is  to  say  that  there  will  never  be 
any  motive  for  saving,  for  denying  ourselves,  in 
order  to  form  new  capitals,  nor  even  to  preserve 
the  old  ones.  In  this  case,  the  waste  would  im- 
mediately create  a  void,  and  interest  would  di- 
rectly reappear. 

In  that,  the  nature  of  the  services  of  which  we 
are  speaking  does  not  differ  from  any  other. 
Thanks  to  industrial  progress,  a  pair  of  stockings, 
which  used  to  be  worth  six  sliillings,  has  suc- 
cessively been  worth  only  four,  three,  and  two. 
1^0  one  can  say  to  what  point  this  value  will  de- 
scend ;  but  we  can  affirm  that  it  will  never  reach 
3 


50  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

zero,  unless  the  stockings  finish  by  producing 
themselves  spontaneously.  Why  ?  Because  the 
principle  of  remuneration  is  in  labor;  because 
he  who  works  for  another  renders  a  service,  and 
ought  to  receive  a  service.  If  no  one  paid  for 
stockings  they  would  cease  to  be  made ;  and? 
with  the  scarcity,  the  price  would  not  fail  to  re- 
appear. 

The  sophism  which  I  am  now  combating  has 
its  root  in  the  infinite  divisibility  which  belongs 
to  value,  as  it  does  to  matter. 

It  may  appear  at  first  paradoxical,  but  it  is  well 
known  to  all  mathematicians,  that,  through  all 
eternity,  fractions  may  be  taken  from  a  weight 
without  the  weight  ever  being  annihilated.  It  is 
sufiicient  that  each  successive  fraction  be  less  than 
the  preceding  one,  in  a  determined  and  regular 
proportion. 

There  are  countries  where  people  apply  them- 
selves to  increasing  the  size  of  horses,  or  diminish- 
ing in  sheep  the  size  of  the  head.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  precisely  to  what  point  they  will  arrive  in 
this.  No  one  can  say  that  he  has  seen  the  largest 
horse  or  the  smallest  sheep's  head  that  will  ever 
appear  in  the  world.  But  he  may  safely  say  that 
the  size  of  horses  will  never  attain  to  infinity,  nor 
the  heads  of  sheep  be  reduced  to  nothing. 

In  the  same  way,  no  one  can  say  to  what  point 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  51 

the  price  of  stockings  nor  the  interest  of  capital 
will  come  down  ;  but  we  may  safely  affirm,  when 
we  know  the  nature  of  tilings,  tliat  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other  will  ever  arrive  at  zero,  for  labor 
and  capital  can  no  more  live  without  recompense 
than  a  sheep  without  a  head. 

The  arguments  of  Mr.  Proudhon  reduce  them- 
selves, then,  to  this  : — Since  the  most  skillful  agri- 
culturists are  those  who  have  reduced  the  heads 
of  sheep  to  the  smallest  size,  we  shall  have  ar- 
rived at  the  highest  agricultural  perfection  when 
sheep  have  no  longer  any  heads.  Therefore,  in 
order  to  realize  the  perfection,  let  us  behead 
them. 

I  have  now  done  with  this  wearisome  discussion. 
AYhy  is  it  that  the  breath  of  false  doctrine  has 
made  it  needful  to  examine  into  the  innate  na- 
ture of  interest  ?  I  must  not  leave  off  Avithout 
remarking  upon  a  beautiful  moral  which  may  be 
drawn  from  this  law : — "  The  reduction  in  the 
rate  of  interest  is  proportional  to  the  abundance 
.of  capital."  This  law  being  granted,  if  there  is  a 
class  of  men  to  whom  it  is  more  important  than 
to  any  other  that  stocks  of  capital  should  accumu- 
late, multiply,  abound,  and  superabcund,  it  is  cer- 
tainly the  class  which  borrows  capital  directly  or 
indirectly ;  it  is  those  men  who  operate  upon  ma- 
terials^ who  gain  assistance  by  instruments^  who 


62  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

live  upon  accumulations  produced  and  saved  by 
other  men. 

Imagine,  in  a  vast  and  fertile  country,  a  popu- 
lation of  a  thousand  inhabitants,  destitute  of  all 
capital  as  thus  defined.  It  will  assuredly  perish  by 
the  pangs  of  hunger.  Let  us  suppose  a  case  hardly 
less  cruel.  Let  us  suppose  that  ten  of  these  sav- 
ages (for  persons  without  capital  are  savages)  are 
provided  with  instruments  and  provisions  suffi- 
cient to  work  and  to  live  themselves  until  harvest 
time,  as  w^ell  as  to  remunerate  the  services  of 
eighty  laborers.  The  inevitable  result  will  be  the 
death  of  nine  hundred  human  beings.  It  is  clear, 
then,  that  since  990  men,  urged  by  want,  will 
crowd  upon  the  supports  whicli  would  only  main- 
tain a  hundred,  the  ten  capitalists  will  be  masters 
of  the  market.  They  will  obtain  labor  on  the 
hardest  conditions,  for  they  will  put  it  up  to  auc- 
tion or  the  highest  bidder.  And  observe  this, — 
if  these  capitalists  entertain  such  pious  sentiments 
as  WQuld  induce  them  to  impose  personal  priva- 
tions on  themselves,  in  order  to  diminish  the  suf- 
ferings of  some  of  their  brethren,  this  generosit}^, 
which  attaches  to  morality,  will  be  as  noble  in  its 
principle  as  useful  in  its  effects.  But,  if  duped 
by  that  false  philosophy  which  persons  wish  so 
inconsiderately  to  mingle  with  economic  laws,  they 
take  to  remunerating:  labor  in  excess  of  what  it  is 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEEEST.  53 

worth,  and  in  excess  of  what  they  are  able  to  pay, 
far  from  doing  good,  they  will  do  harm.  Tliey  will 
give  double  wages,  it  may  be.  But  then,  forty-five 
men  will  be  better  provided  for,  whilst  fortj^-iive 
others  from  the  diminution  in  the  supply  of 
capital,  will  augment  the  nuniber  of  those  who 
are  sinking  into  the  grave.  Upon  this  supposi- 
tion, it  is  not  the  deprivation  of  wages  which 
primarily  works  the  mischief,  but  the  scarcity  of 
capital.  Low  wages  are  not  the  cause,  but  the 
effect  of  the  evil.  I  may  add,  that  they  are  to  a 
certain  extent  the  remedy.  It  acts  in  this  way  : 
it  distributes  the  burden  of  suffering  as  much  as 
it  can,  and  saves  as  many  lives  as  a  limited  quan- 
tity of  available  sustenance  permits. 

Suppose  now,  that  instead  of  ten  capitalists, 
there  should  be  a  hundred,  two  hundred,  five 
hundred — is  it  not  evident  that  the  condition  of 
the  whole  population,  and,  above  all,  that  of  the 
mass  of  the  people  will  be  more  and  more  im- 
proved ?  Is  it  not  evident  that,  apart  from  every 
consideration  of  generosity,  they  would  obtain 
more  work  and  better  pay  for  it? — that  they 
themselves  will  be  in  a  better  condition  to  accu- 
mulate capital,  without  being  able  to  fix  the  limits 
to  this  ever-increasing  facility  of  realizing  equal- 
ity and  well-being?  "Would  it  not  be  madness 
in  them  to  admit  and  act  upon  the  truth  of  such 


5i  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

doctrines  as  Proudlion  and  John  Ruskin  teacli, 
and  to  act  in  a  way  which  would  reduce  the 
source  of  wages,  and  paralyze  the  activity  and 
stimulus  of  saving  ?  Let  them  learn  this  lesson, 
then.  Accumulations  of  capital  are  good  for  those 
who  possess  them  :  who  denies  it  ?  But  they  are 
also  useful  to  those  who  have  not  yet  been  able  to 
form  them  ;  and  it  is  important  to  those  who  have 
them  not  that  others  should  have  them. 

Yes,  if  the  laboring  classes  knew  their  true  in- 
terests, they  would  seek  to  know  with  the  greatest 
earnestness  what  circumstances  are,  and  what  are 
not  favorable  to  saving,  in  order  to  encourage 
the  former  and  to  discourage  the  latter.  They 
would  sympathize  with  every  measure  which 
tends  to  the  rapid  accumulation  of  capital.  They 
would  be  enthusiastic  promoters  of  peace,  liberty, 
order,  security,  the  union  of  classes  and  peoples, 
economy,  moderation  in  public  expenses,  simplic- 
ity in  the  machinery  of  government;  for  it  is 
under  the  sway  of  all  these  circumstances  that 
saving  does  its  work,  brings  plenty  within  the 
reach  of  the  masses,  invites  those  persons  to  be- 
come the  owners  of  capital  who  were  formerly 
under  the  necessity  of  borrowing  upon  hard  con- 
ditions. They  would  repel  with  energy  the  war- 
like spirit,  which  diverts  from  its  true  course  so 
large  a  part  of  human  labor;  the  monopolizing 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  55 

spirit,  which  deranges  the  equitable  distribution 
of  riches,  in  the  way  by  which  liberty  alone  can 
realize  it ;  the  multitude  of  public  services 
which  attack  our  purses  only  to  check  our  liberty ; 
and,  in  short,  those  subversive,  hateful,  thought- 
less doctrines,  which  alarm  capital,  prevent  its 
formation,  oblige  it  to  flee,  and  finally  to  raise  its 
price,  to  the  especial  disadvantage  of  the  workers, 
who  bring  it  into  existence. 

Take  for  example  the  revolution  which  over- 
threw the  government  of  France,  and  disturbed 
society  in  February,  1848,  is  it  not  a  hard  lesson  ? 
Is  it  not  evident  that  the  insecurity  it  has  thrown 
into  the  world  of  business  on  the  one  hand  ;  and, 
on  the  other,  the  advancement  of  the  fatal  the- 
ories to  which  I  have  alluded,  and  which,  from 
the  clubs,  have  almost  penetrated  into  the  re- 
gions of  the  legislature,  have  everywhere  raised 
the  rate  of  interest  ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  from 
that  time  the  laboring  classes  of  France  have 
found  greater  difficulty  in  procuring  those  mate- 
rials, instruments,  and  provisions,  without  which 
labor  is  impossible?  Is  it  not  that  which  has 
caused  stagnation  of  business ;  and  does  not  par- 
alysis of  industry  in'  turn  lower  wages  ?  Thus 
there  is  a  deficiency  of  labor  to  those  who  need 
to  labor,  from  the  same  cause  which  loads  the  ob- 
jects they  consume  with  an  increase  of  price,  in 


56  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

consequence  of  tlie  rise  of  interest.  Higli  inter- 
est and  low  wages,  signify  in  other  words  that 
the  same  article  preserves  its  price,  but  that 
the  remuneration  of  the  capitalist  has  invaded, 
without  profiting  himself,  that  of  the  work- 
man. 

A  friend  of  mine,  commissioned  to  make  in- 
quir}^  into  Parisian  industry,  has  assured  me  that 
the  manufacturers  have  revealed  to  him  a  very 
striking  fact,  which  proves,  better  than  any 
reasoning  can,  how  much  insecurity  and  uncer- 
tainty injure  the  formation  of  capital.  It  was  re- 
marked that  during  the  most  distressing  period 
of  this  revolution  the  popular  expenses  of  ex- 
penditures for  j)ersonal  gratification  did  not 
diminish.  The  small  theatres,  the  public-houses, 
and  tobacco  depots,  were  as  much  frequented  as 
in  prosperous  times.  On  inquiry,  the  operatives 
themselves  explained  this  phenomenon  as  follows : 
— "  What  is  the  use  of  economizing  ?  Who 
knows  what  will  happen  to  us  ?  Who  knows 
that  interest  will  not  be  abolished  ?  Who  knows 
but  that  the  State  will  become  a  universal  and 
gratuitous  lender,  and  that  it  will  annihilate  all 
the  fruits  which  we  miglit  expect  from  our 
savings?"  Well !  I  say,  that  if  such  ideas  could 
prevail  during  two  single  years,  it  would  be 
enough  to  turn  our  beautiful  France  into  a  Tur- 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  57 

key — misery  would  become  general  and  endemic, 
and,  most  assm-edly,  the  poor  would  be  the  first 
upon  whom  it  would  fall. 

Laboring  men  !  they  talk  to  you  a  great  deal 
upon  the  artificial  organization  of  labor ; — do  you 
know  why  they  do  so  ?  Because  they  are  igno- 
rant of  the  laws  of  its  natural  organization  ;  that 
is,  of  the  wonderful  ors^anization  which  results 
from  liberty.  You  are  told  that  liberty  gives 
rise  to  what  is  called  the  radical  antagonism  of 
classes;  that  it  creates,  and  makes  to  clash,  tw^o 
opposite  interests — that  of  the  capitalists  and  that 
of  the  laborers.  But  we  ought  to  begin  by  prov- 
ing that  the  antagonism  exists  by  a  law  of  nature ; 
and  afterwards  it  w^ould  remain  to  be  shown 
how  far  the  arrangements  for  restriction  are 
superior  to  those  of  liberty,  for  between  liberty 
and  restriction  I  see  no  middle  path.  Again,  it 
would  remain  to  be  proved  that  restriction  would 
always  operate  to  your  advantage,  and  to  the  pre- 
judice of  the  rich.  But,  no  ;  this  radical  antagon- 
ism, this  natural  opposition  of  interests,  does  not 
exist.  It  is  only  an  evil  dream  of  perverted  and 
intoxicated  imaginations.  ]^o ;  a  plan  so  defec- 
tive has  not  proceeded  from  the  Divine  Mind. 
To  affirm  it,  w^e  must  begin  by  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  God.  And  see  how,  by  means  of  social 
laws,  and  because  men  exchange  amongst  them- 


58  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

selves  their  labors  and  their  productions,  a  harmo- 
nious tie  attaches  the  different  classes  of  society 
one  to  tlie  other !  There  are  the  landowners  ;  what 
is  their  interest?  That  the  soil  be  fertile,  and  the 
sun  beneficent :  and  what  is  the  result  ?  That 
-svheat  abounds,  that  it  falls  in  price,  and  the  ad- 
vantage turns  to  the  profit  of  those  who  have  had 
no  patrimony.  There  are  the  manufacturers — what 
is  their  constant  thought  ?  To  perfect  their  labor, 
to  increase  the  power  of  their  machines,  to  pro- 
cure for  themselves,  upon  the  best  terms,  the  raw 
material.  And  to  what  does  all  this  tend?  To 
the  abundance  and  the  low  price  of  produce ;  that 
is,  all  the  efforts  of  the  manufacturers,  and 
w^ithout  their  suspecting  it,  result  in  a  profit  to 
the  public  consumer,  of  which  each  of  you  is  one. 
It  is  the  same  with  every  profession.  Now,  the 
capitalists  are  not  exempt  from  this  law.  They 
are  very  busy  making  schemes,  economizing,  and 
turning  them  to  their  advantage.  This  is  all  very 
well ;  but  the  more  they  succeed,  the  more  do 
they  promote  the  abundance  of  capital,  and,  as  a 
necessary  consequence,  the  reduction  of  interest. 
!N^ow,  who  is  it  that  profits  by  the  reduction  of  in- 
terest ?  Is  it  not  the  borrower  first,  and  finalJy, 
the  consumers  of  the  things  wdiich  the  capital 
contributes  to  produce  ? 

It  is  therefore  certain  tliat  the  final  result  of 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  59 

the  efforts  of  each  class  is  the  common  good  of 
all. 

Yon  are  told  that  capital  tyrannizes  over  labor. 
I  do  not  deny  that  each  one  endeavors  to  draw 
tlie  greatest  possible  advantage  from  his  situation ; 
but,  in  this  sense,  he  realizes  only  that  which  is 
possible.  iTow,  it  is  never  more  possible  for 
capitalists  to  tyrannize  over  labor,  than  when  capi- 
tal is  scarce  ;  for  then  it  is  they  who  make  the  law 
— it  is  tliey  who  regulate  the  rate  of  sale.  E'ever  is 
this  tyranny  more  impossible  to  them,  than  when 
capital  and  capitalists  are  abundant;  for,  in  that 
case,  it  is  labor  which  has  the  command.  [Where 
there  is  one  to  sell  and  two  to  buy,  the  seller  fixes 
the  price ;  where  there  are  two  to  sell  and  one  to 
buy,  the  buyer  always  has  the  advantage. — Editor. '] 

Away,  then,  with  the  jealousies  of  classes,  ill- 
will,  unfounded  hatreds,  unjust  suspicions.  These 
depraved  passions  injure  those  who  nourish  them 
in  their  heart.  This  is  no  declamatory  morality; 
it  is  a  chain  of  causes  and  effects,  which  is  capa- 
ble of  being  rigorously,  mathematically  demon- 
strated. It  is  not  the  less  sublime  in  that  it 
satisfies  the  intellect  as  well  as  the  feelings. 

I  shall  sum  up  this  whole  dissertation  with 
these  words  : — Workmen,  laborers,  destitute  and 
suffering  classes,  will  you  improve  your  condition  ? 
You  will  not    succeed    by   strife,   insurrection, 


60  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

hatred,  and  error.  But  there  are  three  things 
which  always  result  in  benefit  and  blessing  to 
every  community  and  to  every  individual  which 
help  to  compose  it ; — and  these  things  are — peace, 
liberty,  and  security. 


The  foregoing  essay  was  written  by  M.  Bastiat, 
in  France,  for  the  instruction  of  his  countrymen, 
shortly  after  the  revolution  of  1848,  when  the 
opinions  of  Proudhon  and  other  Socialist  leaders 
seemed  to  be  acquiring  a  strong  hold  among  the 
laboring  classes  of  his  country.  Proudhon,  and  most 
of  his  Socialist  friends  have  passed  away,  but  their 
ideas  nevertheless  continue  to  find  favor  with  not 
a  few  people,  even  in  the  United  States.  It  may, 
therefore,  be  of  interest  to  the  American  reader, 
to  supplement  this  essay  of  M.  Bastiat,  with  the 
following  results  of  some  investigations  relative 
to  accumulation  and  distribution  of  wealth  in 
the  United  States,  which  were  presented  to  the 
American  Social  Science  Association,  at  their 
annual  meeting  in  Detroit,  Michigan,  in  18Y5  : 

"  It  would  seem  clear,  that  all  ideas  about  the 
compulsory  distribution  of  wealth  or  capital,  and 
about  diminishing  the  incentives  for  the  accumu- 
lation of  capital,  are  wholly  antagonistic  in  the 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEEEST.  Gl 

first  place,  to  the  idea  of  personal  freedom,  unless 
we  mean  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  freedom  sim- 
ply to  the  possession  and  control  of  one's  own 
person  irrespective  of  property,  which  would 
involve  little  more  than  the  right  to  free  locomo- 
tion ;  and,  second,  that  they  tend  to  impair  the 
growth  of,  if  not  wholly  to  destroy,  civilization 
itself.  For  if  liberty  is  not  afforded  to  all,  rich 
and  poor,  high  and  low,  to  keep,  and  to  use  in 
whatever  way  they  may  see  fit,  that  which  ihej 
lawfully  acquire,  subject  only  to  the  necessary 
social  restraint  of  working  no  positive  ill  to  one's 
neighbor, — then  the  desire  to  acquire  and  accu- 
mulate property  will  be  taken  away ;  and  capital, 
meaning  thereby  not  merely  money,  wdiich  con- 
stitutes but  a  very  small  part  of  the  capital  of  any 
community,  but  all  those  things  which  are  the 
accumulated  results  of  labor,  foresight,  and  econ- 
omy,— the  machinery  by  which  abundance  is  in- 
creased, toil  lightened,  and  comfort  gained, — will, 
instead  of  increasing,  rapidly  diminish. 

'*  And,  in  order  to  comprehend  the  full  mean- 
ing of  this  statement,  attention  is  asked  to  the 
following  illustration  of  the  extreme  slowness 
with  which  that  which  we  call  capital  accumu- 
lates, even  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances. 

"  By  the  census  of  1870,  the  aggregate  wealth 
of  the  United  States,  making  all  due  allowances 


,62  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

for  dnplication  in  valuation,  was  probabl}^  not  in 
excess  of  twenty-five  thousand  millions.  But  vast 
as  the  sum  is,  and  difficult  as  it  certainly  is  for  the 
mind  to  form  any  adequate  conception  of  it  in 
the  aggregate,  it  is  nevertheless  most  interesting 
to  inquire  what  it  is,  that  measured  by  human 
effort,  it  represents.  And  the  answer  is,  that  it 
represents,  firsts  a  value,  supposing  the  whole  sum 
to  be  apportioned  equally  among  an  assumed  pop- 
ulation of  forty  millions,  of  about  six  hundred 
and  twenty  dollars  to  each  individual, — not  a 
large  amount,  if  one  was  to  depend  on  its  in- 
terest at  six  per  cent,  as  a  means  of  support ;  and, 
second^  it  represents  the  surplus  result  of  all  the 
labor,  skill,  and  thought  exerted,  and  all  the  capi- 
tal earned  and  saved,  or  brought  into  the  country, 
for  the  last  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  or  ever 
since  the  country  became  practically  the  abode  of 
civilized  men. 

"  But,  with  capital,  or  the  instrumentalities  for 
creating  abundance,  increasing  thus  slowly,  it  cer- 
tainly stands  to  reason  that  we  needs  be  exceed- 
ingly careful,  lest,  by  doing  anything  to  impair 
its  security,  we  impair  also  its  rate  of  increase ; 
and  we  accordingly  find,  as  we  should  naturally 
expect  from  the  comparatively  high  education  of 
our  people,  that  the  idea  of  any  direct  interfer- 
ence with  the  rights  of  property  meets  with  but 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  63 

little  favor  upon  tliis  side  of  tlie  Atlantic.  But 
at  the  same  time  we  cannot  deny  that  many  of 
the  most  intelligent  of  the  men  and  women  inter- 
ested in  the  various  labor-reform  movements  in 
this  country,  taking  as  the  basis  of  their  reason- 
ing the  large  nominal  aggregate  of  the  national 
wealth,  and  the  large  advance  which  has  recently 
been  made  in  the  power  of  production,  and  con- 
sidering tliem  in  the  abstract,  irrespective  of  time 
or  distribution,  have  nevertheless  adopted  the 
idea, — vague  and  shadowy  though  it  may  be, — 
that  the  amount  of  the  present  annual  product  of 
labor  and  capital  is  sufficient  for  all ;  and  that  all 
it  is  necessary  to  do  to  insure  comfort  and  abun- 
dance to  the  masses,  is  for  the  State  somehow  to 
intervene, — either  by  fixing  the  hours  of  labor, 
or  the  rates  of  compensation  for  service,  or  the 
use  of  capital, — and  compel  its  more  equitable 
distribution. 

"  !N^ow,  that  a  more  equitable  distribution  of  the 
results  of  production  is  desirable,  and  that  such  a 
distribution  does  not  at  present  take  place  to  the 
extent  that  it  might  witliout  impairing  the  exer- 
cise of  individual  freedom,  must  be  admitted ; 
but,  before  undertaking  to  make  laws  on  the 
subject,  is  it  not  of  importance  to  first  find  out 
how  much  we  have  really  got  to  divide  ? 

"  Let  us  see. 


64  CAPITAL  AND  INTEKEST. 

"  Stated  in  money,  the  maximum  value  of  the 
annual  product  of  the  United  States  is  not  in 
excess  of  $5,000,000,000  (probably  less) ;  of  which 
the  value  of  the  annual  product  of  all  our  agricul- 
ture,— our  cotton  and  our  corn,  our  beef  and  our 
pork,  our  hay,  our  wheat,  and  all  our  other  fruits, 
— is  returned  by  the  last  census  with  undoubted 
approximative  accuracy,  at  less  than  one-half  that 
sum  ;  or  in  round  numbers  at  $2,400,000,000. 

"But  while  this  sum  of  estimated  yearly  in- 
come, like  the  figures  which  report  the  aggregate 
of  our  national  wealth,  is  so  vast  as  to  be  almost 
beyond  the  power  of  mental  conception,  there  is 
yet  one  thing  about  it  which  is  certain,  and  can 
be  readily  comprehended ;  and  that  is,  that  of  this 
whole  product,  w^hether  we  measure  it  in  money 
or  in  any  other  way,  fully  nine-tenths,  and  proba- 
bly a  larger  proportion,  must  be  immediately  con- 
sumed, in  order  that  we  may  simply  live,  and 
make  good  the  loss  and  waste  of  capital  previously 
accumulated ;  leaving  not  more  than  one-tenth  to 
be  applied  in  the  form  of  accumulation  for  effect- 
ing a  future  increased  production  and  develop- 
ment. 

"  Or  to  state  the  case  differently,  and  at  the 
same  time  illustrate  how  small,  even  under  tlie 
most  favorable  circumstances,  can  be  the  annual 
surplus  of    production   over   consumption,  it  is 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  65 

only  necessary  to  compare  the  largest  estimate 
of  the  value  of  our  anmial  product,  with  our 
largest  estimate  of  the  aggregate  national  wealth, 
to  see,  that  practically,  after  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years  of  toiling  and  saving,  we  have  only 
managed  as  a  nation  to  get  about  three  and  a 
half  years  ahead,  in  the  way  of  subsistence ;  and 
that  now  if,  as  a  whole  people,  we  should  stop 
working  and  producing,  and  repairing  waste  and 
deterioration,  and  devote  ourselves  exclusively  to 
amusement  and  idleness,  living  on  the  accumu- 
lation of  our  former  labors  or  the  labor  of  our 
fathers,  four  years  would  be  more  than  sufficient 
to  starve  three-fourths  of  ns  out  of  existence,  and 
reduce  the  other  one-fourth  to  the  condition  of 
semi-barbarism ;  a  result,  on  the  whole,  which  it 
is  well  to  think  of  in  connection  with  the  pro- 
mulgation of  certain  new  theories,  that  the  best 
w^ay  of  increasing  abundance,  and  promoting  com- 
fort and  happiness,  is  by  decreasing  the  aggregate 
and  opportunities  of  production. 

"  In  fact,  there  are  few  things  more  transitory 
and  perishable  than  that  which  w^e  call  wealth ; 
and,  as  specifically  embodied  in  the  ordinary 
forms  we  see  about  us,  its  duration  is  not,  on  the 
average,  in  excess  of  the  life  of  a  generation. 

"  The  railroad  system  of  the  country  is  esti- 
mated to  have  cost  more  than  two  thousand  mil- 


66  CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST. 

lions  of  dollars ;  but  if  left  to  itself,  without  re- 
newals or  repairs,  its  value  as  property  in  ten 
years  would  entirely  vanish ;  and  so  also  with 
our  ships,  oui"  machinery,  our  tools  and  imple- 
ments, and  even  our  land  when  cultivated  without 
renovation.  For  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that 
those  same  forces  of  nature  which  we  have  mas- 
tered, and  made  subservient  for  the  work  of  pro- 
duction, are  also  our  greatest  natural  enemies, 
and  if  left  to  themselves  will  tear  down  and  de- 
stroy much  more  rapidly  than  under  guidance 
they  will  aggregate  and  build  up.  A  single  night 
was  sufficient  in  Chicago  to  utterly  destroy  what 
was  equivalent  to  one  quarter  of  the  whole  sur- 
plus product  which  during  the  preceding  year  the 
nation  had  accumulated ;  and  of  all  the  material 
wealth  of  the  great  and  rich  nations  of  antiquity, 
— of  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  Tyrian,  and  Eoman 
civilization, — nothing  whatever  has  come  down 
to  us,  except,  singularly  enough,  those  things 
which,  like  their  tombs  and  public  monuments, 
never  were  possessed  of  a  money  valuation. 

"  But  the  inferences  which  we  are  warranted 
in  drawing  from  these  facts  and  figures  are  by  no 
means  exhausted.  Supposing  the  value  of  our 
annual  product — ^five  thousand  millions — to  be 
equally  divided  among  our  present  population  of 
forty  millions :  then  the  average  income  of  each 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  67 

individual  would  be  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 
dollars  per  annum ;  out  of  which  food,  clothing, 
fuel,  slielter,  education,  traveling  expenses,  and 
means  of  enjoyment,  are  to  be  provided,  all  taxes 
paid,  all  waste,  loss,  and  depreciation  made  good, 
and  any  surphis  available  as  new  capital  added  to 
former  accumulations. 

"  J^ow,  if  at  first  thought  this  deduction  of  the 
average  individual  income  of  our  people  seems 
small,  it  should  be  remembered  that  it  is  based  on 
an  estimate  of  annual  national  product  greater 
both  in  the  aggregate,  and  in  proportion  to  num- 
bers, than  is  enjoyed  by  any  other  nation,  our 
compeers  in  wealth  and  civilization  ;  and  further, 
that  this  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  is 
not  the  sum  which  all  actually  receive  as  income, 
but  the  average  sum  which  each  would  receive, 
were  the  whole  annual  product  divided,  equally. 
But  as  a  practical  matter  we  know  that  the  annual 
product  is  not  divided  equally ;  and,  furthermore, 
that,  as  long  as  men  are  born  with  difl^erent  nat- 
ural capacities,  it  never  will  be  so  divided.  Some 
will  receive,  and  do  receive,  as  their  share  of  the 
annual  product,  the  annual  average  we  have  stated, 
multiplied  by  hundreds  or  even  thousands ;  which 
of  course  necessitates  that  very  many  others  shall 
receive  proportionally  less.  And  how  much  less, 
is  indicated  by  recent  investigations  which  show, 


68  CAPITAL  AND  INTEKEST. 

that  for  the  whole  country  the  average  earnings 
of  laborers  and  nnskilled  workmen  is  not  in  ex- 
cess of  four  hundred  dollars  per  annum, — the 
maximum  amount  being  received  in  JSTew  Eng- 
land, and  the  minimum  in  the  Southern,  or  former 
slaveholding  States;  ^vhich  sum,  assuming  that 
the  families  of  all  these  men  consist  of  four  (the 
census  of  18Y5  says  live),  two  adults  and  two 
children,  would  give  one  hundred  dollars  as  the 
average  amount  which  each  individual  of  the 
class  referred  to  produces,  and  also  the  amount 
to  which  each  such  individual  must  be  restricted 
in  consumption ;  for  it  is  clear,  that  no  man  can 
consume  more  than  he  or  his  capital  produces, 
unless  he  can  in  some  way  obtain  the  prodjict  of 
some  other  man's  labor  without  giving  him  an 
equivalent  for  it. 

"  We  are  thus  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  not- 
withstanding the  wonderful  extent  to  which  we 
have  been  enabled  to  use  and  control  the  forces 
of  nature  for  the-  purpose  of  increasing  the  power 
of  production,  the  time  has  not  yet  come,  when 
society  in  the  United  States  can  command  such  a 
degree  of  absolute  abundance  as  to  justify  and 
warrant  any  class  or  individual,  rich  or  poor,  and 
least  of  all  those  who  depend  upon  the  product  of 
each  day's  labor  to  meet  each  day's  needs,  in  do- 
ing anything  which  can  in  any  way  tend  to  dimin- 


CAPITAL  AND  INTEREST.  69 

isli  abundance ;  and  furthermore,  that  the  agency 
of  law,  even  if  invoked  to  the  fullest  extent  in 
compelling  distribution,  must  be  exceedingly 
limited  in  its  operations. 

"Let  the  working  man  of  the  United  States 
therefore,  in  every  vocation,  demand  and  strive, 
if  he  will,  for  the  largest  possible  share  of  the 
joint  products  of  labor  and  capital ;  for  it  is  the 
natural  right  of  every  one  to  seek  to  obtain  the 
largest  price  for  that  which  he  has  to  sell.  But 
if  in  so  doing  he  restricts  production,  and  so 
diminishes  abundance,  he  does  it  at  his  peril; 
for,  by  a  law  far  above  any  legislative  control  or 
influence,  whatever  increases  scarcity  not  only 
increases  the  necessity,  but  diminishes  the  rewards 
of  labor. 

"  Street  processions,  marching  after  flags  and 
jjatriotic  mottoes,  even  if  held  every  day  in  the 
week,  will  never  change  the  conditions  which 
govern  production  and  compensation.  '  Idleness 
produces  nothing  but  weeds  and  rust ;  and  such 
products  are  not  marketable  anywhere,  though 
society  often  pays  for  them  most  dearly.' " 

— Editor, 


70  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 


THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEJS", 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEK 


In  the  department  of  economy,  an  act,  a  habit, 
an  institution,  a  law,  gives  birth  not  only  to  an 
effect,  but  to  a  series  of  effects.  Of  these  effects, 
the  first  only  is  immediate ;  it  manifests  itself  sim- 
ultaneously with  its  cause — it  is  sehn.  The  others 
unfold  in  succession — they  are  not  seen :  it  is  well 
for  us  if  they  are  foreseen.  Between  a  good  and 
a  bad  economist  this  constitutes  the  whole  differ- 
ence— the  one  takes  account  of  the  visille  effect ; 
the  other  takes  account  both  of  the  effects  which 
are  seen  and  also  of  those  which  it  is  necessary  to 
foresee.  Kow  this  difference  is  enormous,  for  it 
sometimes  happens  that  when  the  immediate  con- 
sequence is  favorable,  the  ultimate  consequences 
are  unfavorable,  and  the  converse.  Hence  it 
follows  that  the  bad  economist  pursues  a  small 
present  good,  which  may  be  followed  by  a  great 
evil  to  come,  while  the  wise  economist  labors  for  a 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  71 

great  good  to  come,  at  the  risk  of  a  small  present 
evil. 

In  fact,  it  is  the  same  in  the  science  of  health, 
arts,  and  in  that  of  morals.  If  often  happens 
that  the  sweeter  the  first  fruit  of  a  habit 
is,  the  more  bitter  the  consequences.  Take, 
for  example,  debauchery,  idleness,  prodigality. 
When,  therefore,  a  man,  absorbed  in  the  effect 
which  is  seen^  has  not  yet  learned  to  discern 
those  which  are  not  seen,  he  gives  way  to  in- 
jurious habits,  not  only  by  inclination  but  by  de- 
liberation. 

This  explains,  in  a  great  degree,  the  grievous 
condition  of  mankind.  Ignorance  surrounds  its 
cradle  :  then  its  actions  are  determined  by  their 
first  consequences,  the  only  ones  which,  in  its  first 
stage,  it  can  see.  It  is  only  in  the  long  run  that 
it  learns  to  take  account  of  the  others.  It  has  to 
learn  this  lesson  from  two  very  different  masters 
— experience  and  foresight.  Experience  teaches 
effectually,  but  brutally.  It  makes  us  acquainted 
with  all  the  effects  of  an  action,  by  causing  us  to 
feel  them  ;  and  we  cannot  fail  to  finish  by  know- 
ing that  fire  burns,  if  we  have  burned  ourselves. 
For  this  rough  teacher,  I  should  like,  if  possible, 
to  substitute  a  more  gentle  one.  I  mean  Fore- 
sight. For  this  purpose  I  propose  to  examine  the 
consequences  of  certain  economical  plienomena, 


72  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AM) 

by  placing  in  opposition  to   each    other    those 
which  are  seen,  and  those  which  are  not  seen, 

I.— THE  BROKEN  WINDOW. 

Have  yon  ever  witnessed  the  anger  of  the  good 
shopkeeper,  James,  when  his  careless  son  happened 
to  break  a  pane  of  glass?  If  you  have  been 
present  at  such  a  scene,  you  will  most  assuredly 
bear  witness  to  the  fact,  that  it  is  the  custom  of 
the  spectators  to  offer  the  unfortunate  owner  this 
invariable  consolation  :  "  It  is  an  ill  wind  that 
blows  nobody  good.  Everybody  must  live,  and 
what  would  become  of  the  glaziers  if  panes  of 
glass  were  never  broken  ? " 

^N^ow,  this  form  of  condolence  contains  an  en- 
tire theory,  which  it  will  be  well  to  show  up  in 
this  simple  case,  seeing  that  it  is  precisely  the 
same  as  that  w^liich,  unhappily,  regulates  the 
greater  part  of  our  economical  institutions. 

Suppose  it  cost  a  dollar  to  repair  the  damage, 
and  you  say  that  the  accident  brings  a  dollar  to 
the  glazier's  trade — that  it  encourages  that  trade 
to  the  amount  of  a  dollar — I  grant  it;  I  have 
not  a  word  to  say  against  it;  you  reason  justly. 
The  glazier  comes,  performs  his  task,  receives  his 
dollar,  rubs  his  hands,  and,  in  his  heart,  blesses 
the  careless  child.     All  this  is  that  which  is  seen. 

But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  you  come  to  the  con- 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  73 

elusion,  as  is  too  often  the  case,  that  it  is  a  good 
thing  to  break  windows,  that  it  causes  money  to 
circulate,  and  that  the  encouragement  of  industry 
in  general  will  be  the  result  of  it,  you  will  oblige 
me  to  call  out,'  "  Stop  there !  your  theory  is  con- 
fined to  that  which  is  see7i  /  it  takes  no  account 
of  that  which  is  not  seenP 

It  is  not  seen  that  as  our  shopkeeper  has  spent 
a  dollar  upon  one  thing,  he  cannot  spend  it  again 
upon  some  other  thing.  It  is  not  seen  that  if  he 
had  not  had  a  window  to  replace,  he  w^ould, 
perhaps,  have  replaced  his  old  shoes,  or  added  an- 
other book  to  his  library.  In  short,  he  would  have 
employed  his  dollar  in  some  way  which  this  ac- 
cident has  prevented. 

Let  us  take  a  view  of  industry  in  general,  as 
affected  by  this  circumstance.  The  window 
being  broken,  the  glazier's  trade  is  encouraged 
to  the  amount  of  a  dollar  :  this  is  that  which  is 
seen. 

If  the  window  had  not  been  broken,  the  shoe- 
maker's trade  (or  some  other)  would  have  been 
encouraged  to'  the  amount  of  a  dollar;  this  is 
that  which  is  not  seen. 

And  if  that  which  is  hot  seen  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration, because  it  is  a  negative  fact,  as  well  as 
that  which  is  seen,  because  it  is  a  positive  fact, 
it  will  be  understood  that  neither  industry  in 


74  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

general^  nor  the  sum  total  of  national  labor^  is 
affected,  whether  windows  are  broken  or  not. 

Now  let  US  consider  James  himself.  In  the 
former  supposition,  that  of  the  window  being 
broken,  he  spends  a  dollar,  and  has  neither  more 
nor  less  than  he  had  before — namely,  the  enjoy- 
ment of  a  window. 

In  the  second,  where  we  suppose  the  window 
not  to  have  been  broken,  he  would  have  spent  his 
dollar  in  shoes,  and  would  have  had  at  the  same 
time  the  enjoyment  of  a  pair  of  shoes  and  of  a 
window. 

ISTow,  as  James  forms  a  part  of  society,  we 
must  come  to  the  conclusion,  that,  taking  it  alto- 
gether, and  making  an  estimate  of  its  enjoyments 
and  its  labors,  society  has  lost  the  value  of  the 
broken  window. 

Whence  w^e  arrive  at  this  unexpected  conclu- 
sion: "Society  loses  the  value  of  things  which 
are  uselessly  destroyed ; "  and  we  must  assent  to 
a  maxim  which  will  make  the  hair  of  protection- 
ists stand  on  end — To  break,  to  spoil,  to  waste,  is 
not  to  encourage  national  labor ;  or,  more  briefly, 
'*  destruction  is  not  profit." 

What  will  you  say  to  this,  Mr.  H.  0.  Carey  ?  what 
will  you  say,  disciples  of  good  Mr.  Horace  Greeley, 
who  moralized  and  considered  how  much  Ameri- 
can   industry  would   gain    by   the    burning  of 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  75 

Chicago,  in  October,  1871,  from  the  number  of 
houses  it  would  be  necessary  to  rebuild  ?  * 

I  am  sorry  to  disturb  these  ingenious  calcula- 

*  As  M.  Bastiat  originally  wrote,  he  introduced  at  tins 
point  of  liis  argument,  for  illustration,  French  names  and 
persons  not  familiar  to  the  American  reader  ;  and  if  the  trans- 
lation had  been  made  literal,  the  majority  of  Americans,  as 
they  read,  would  doubtless  have  said  to  themselves  :  "  These 
names  which  M.  Bastiat  uses  are  purely  fictitious  ;  for  surely 
one  really  and  soberly  never  put  forth  such  ideas,  or  entered 
into  such  estimates."  To  give,  therefore,  to  the  argument 
more  of  force  and  reality  ;  to  prove  that  there  is  no  necessity 
of  using  fictitious  names  and  characters  in  its  presentation  ; 
but  that  persons  of  position,  intelligence,  and  great  influence 
do  think,  talk,  and  believe  as  M.  Bastiat  assumes,  not  only 
in  France,  but  also  in  the  United  States,  the  editor  has  sub- 
stituted in  the  text  the  names  of  two  well-known  Americans. 
And  tiiat  he  has  taken  no  unwarranted  liberty  in  so  doing, 
he  submits  the  following  as  evidence.  Thus,  on  the  24th  of 
October,  1871,  the  New  York  Tribune,  then  controlled  by 
Horace  Greeley,  in  an  article  in  its  editorial  columns,  evi- 
dently written  by  Mr.  Greeley,  thus  reasoned  about  the 
great  fire  which  had  occurred  a  few  days  previous  at  Chi- 
cago : — 

"  The  money  to  replace  what  has  been  burned  will  not 
be  sent  abroad  to  enrich  foreign  manufacturers ;  but  thanks 
to  the  wise  policy  of  protection,  it  will  stimulate  our  own 
manufactures,  set  our  mills  to  running  faster,  and  give 
employment  to  thousands  of  idle  workmen.  Thus  in  a  short 
time  our  abundant  natural  resources  will  restore  what  has 
been  lost,  and  in  converting  the  raw  material  our  manufac- 
turing interests  will  take  on  a  new  activity." 

AH  of  which  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "  that  fire,  war,  pesti* 


76  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,   AND 

tions,  as  far  as  their  spirit  lias  been  introduced 
into  our  political  economy ;  but  I  beg  of  those 
who  have  indulged  in  them  to  consider  the  subject 
again,  from  a  broader  point  of  view,  by  taking 
into  the  account  that  which  is  not  seen,  and  plac- 
ing it  alongside  of  that  which  is  seen. 

The  reader  must  take  care  to  remember  that 
there  are  not  two  persons  only,  but  three  con- 
cerned in  the  little  scene  which  I  have  submitted 
to  his  attention.      One  of  them,  James,  repre- 

lence,  famine,  sliipvvreck,  and  other  calamities,  if  they  ^ive 
to  certain  class  interests  an  opportunity  to  make  and  sell 
l^roducts  at  an  advance  over  their  current  prices  in  the 
world's  markets,  and  thereby  inflict  an  unnecessary  and 
large  additional  tax  on  the  impoverished  inhabitants  of  a 
distressed  city,  are  not  to  be  regarded  wholly  in  the  light  of 
evils  and  disasters."  The  inhabitants  of  Chicago,  following 
their  natural  instincts,  could  not,  however,  see  the  applica- 
bility of  Mr.  Greeley's  reasoning  in  respect  to  themselves, 
for  they  forthwith  petitioned  Congress  to  allow  foreign  mer- 
chandise, useful  for  rebuilding  their  stores  and  houses,  to 
be  imported  free  of  duty ;  and  Congress,  also  disagreeing 
with  Mr.  Greeley,  acceded  to  their  petition. 

Again,  Mr.  Henry  C.  Carey,  who  is  one  of  the  foremost 
advocates  of  the  "Protection  Theory,"  has  -within  recent 
years  said  publicly,  over  and  over  again,  that  one  of  the 
greatest  of  human  calamities — a  prolonged  war  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States — would  be  the  very  best 
possible  thing  which  could  happen  to  promote  the  industrial 
independence   and   development   of    the   latter   country. — 

Editor. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  77 

sents  the  consumer,  reduced,  by  an  act  of  destruc- 
tion, to  one  enjoyment  instead  of  two.  Another, 
under  the  title  of  the  glazier,  shows  us  the  pro- 
ducer, whose  trade  is  encouraged  by  the  accident. 
The  third  is  the  shoemaker  (or  some  other  trades- 
man), whose  labor  suffers  proportionably  by  the 
same  cause.  It  is  this  third  person  who  is  always 
kept  in  the  shade,  and  who,  personating  that  which 
is  not  seen,  is  a  necessary  element  of  the  problem. 
It  is  he  who  shows  us  how  absurd  it  is  to  think  we 
see  a  profit  in  an  act  of  destruction.  It  is  he  who 
will  soon  teach  us  that  it  is  not  less  absurd  to  see 
a  profit  in  a  restriction,  which  is,  after  all,  nothing 
else  than  a  partial  destruction.  Therefore,  if  you 
will  only  go  to  the  root  of  all  the  arguments  which 
are  adduced  in  its  favor,  all  you  will  find  will  be 
the  paraphrase  of  this  vulgar  saying — What 
woidd  hecome  of  the  glazier^  if  nobody  ever  hrolce 
windovjs  f 

II.— THE  DISBANDING  OF  TROOPS. 

It  is  the  same  with  a  people  as  it  is  with  a  man. 
If  it  wishes  to  give  itself  some  gratification,  it 
naturally  considers  whether  it  is  worth  what  it 
costs.  To  a  nation,  security  is  the  greatest  of  ad- 
vantages. If,  in  order  to  obtain  it,  it  is  necessary 
to  have  an  army  of  a  hundred  thousand  men,  I 
have  nothing  to  say  against  it.     It  is  an  enjoy- 


78  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

ment  bought  bj  a  sacrifice  of  a  certain  amount  of 
the  results  of  labor,  which  might  be  used  for 
other  purposes.  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood 
upon  tlie  extent  of  my  position.  A  member  of 
Congress  proposes  to  disband  a  hundred  thousand 
men,  for  the  sake  of  relieving  the  tax-payers  of  an 
annual  tax  of  fifty  millions  of  dollars. 

If  we  confine  ourselves  to  this  answer — "  The 
hundred  millions  of  men,  and  these  hundred  mil- 
lions of  mone}^,  are  indispensable  to  the  national 
security.  It  is  security  purchased  at  the  sacrifice 
of  a  certain  amount  of  property  ;  but  without  this 
sacrifice  the  country  might  be  torn  by  factions  or 
invaded  by  some  foreign  power."  I  have  noth- 
ing to  object  to  this  argument,  which  may  be  true 
or  false  in  fact,  but  which  theoretically  contains 
nothing  which  militates  against  political  economy. 
The  error  begins  when  the  sacrifice  itself  is  said 
to  be  an  advantage  because  it  profits  somebody. 

Kow  I  am  very  much  mistaken  if,  the  moment 
the  author  of  the  proposal  has  taken  his  seat,  some 
orator  will  not  rise  and  say — "  Disband  a  hundred 
thousand  men  !  Do  you  know  what  you  are  say- 
ing ?  What  will  become  of  them  ?  Where  will 
they  get  a  living  ?  Don't  you  know  that  work  is 
scarce  everywhere?  Thtit  every  field  is  over- 
stocked ?  Would  you  turn  them  out  of  doors  to 
increase  competition  and  to  still  further  depress 


r  1/  /  r^' 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN*.  79 

tlie  rate  of  wages  ?  Just  now,  when  it  is  a  hard 
matter  to  live  at  all,  it  is  a  pretty  business  for  the 
State  to  add  an  additional  hundred  thousand  per- 
sons to  the  number  of  the  community  who  must 
get  bread  by  their  own  labor.  Consider,  also,  that 
the  army  consumes  arms,  clothing,  and  a  great 
variety  of  other  products  of  labor  ;  that  it  makes 
business  in  garrison  towns  ;  that  it  is,  in  short,  an 
immense  blessing  to  innumerable  purveyors. 
Why,  the  very  bare  idea  of  doing  away  with  all 
this  immense  industrial  movement  is  enough  to 
terrify  every  one  who  has  at  heart  the  develop- 
ment of  the  business  of  the  country.  Sueh  talk 
always  has  an  ^effect  on  all  patriotic  generous 
minds,  and  Congress  terminates  the  discussion  by 
voting  the  continued  maintenance  of  the  hundred 
thousand  soldiers,  for  reasons  drawn  from  the 
necessity  of  the  service,  and  from  economical  con- 
siderations. It  is  these  latter  considerations  only 
that  I  have  to  consider. 

A  hundred  thousand  men,  costing  the  tax-pay- 
ers fifty  millions  of  money,  live  and  bring  to  the 
purveyors  as  much  as  that  fifty  millions  can  sup- 
ply.    This  is  that  which  is  seen. 

But  fifty  millions  taken  from  the  pockets  of 
the  tax-pay e^rs  cease  to  maintain  these  same  tax- 
payers and  the  purveyors,  to  the  extent  to  which 
these  fifty  millions  are  invested  with  a  purchasing 


80  THAT  WHICH   IS  SEEN,   AND 

power  of  the  necessities  of  life.  This  is  that 
which  is  not  seen.  Now  make  your  calculations. 
Cast  up,  and  tell  me  what  profit  there  is  for  the 
masses  ? 

I  will  tell  you  where  the  loss  lies  ;  and  to  sim- 
plify itj  instead  of  speaking  of  a  hundred  thousand 
men  and  fifty  millions  of  money,  it  sliall  be  of  one 
man  and  five  hundred  dollars  of  mone}^. 

We  will  suppose  tliat  we  are  in  the  village  of 
A.  The  recruiting  sergeants  go  their  round,  and 
take  ofl:'  a  man.  The  United  States  tax-collectors 
go  their  round,  and  take  off  five  hundred  dollars,  the 
results*  of  taxation.  The  man  and  the  sum  of  money 
are  taken  to  form  a  camp — say  at  Washington — and 
the  money  is  appropriated  to  support  the  soldier 
for  a  year  without  doing  anything.  If  you  now 
have  regard  to  the  interest  of  the  city  and  popu- 
lation of  Washington  only,  the  measure  is  a  very 
advantageous  one;  but  if  you  look  toward  the 
village  of  A.,  you  will  judge  very  differently;  for, 
unless  you  are  very  blind  indeed,  you  will  see  that 
that  village  has  lost  a  worker,  and  the  five  hun- 
dred dollars  which  would  remunerate  his  labor,  as 
well  as  th6  activity  which  the  expenditure  of  that 
money  taken  away  in  the  form  of  taxes  would 
locally  produce. 

At  first  sight  there  would  seem  to  be  some 
compensation.     What   took  place  at  the   village 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  81 

now  takes  place  at  Wasliington,  that  is  all.  But 
the  loss  is  to  be  estimated  in  this  way : — At  the 
village,  a  man  dug  and  worked;  he  was  a  worker. 
At  Washington,  he  turns  to  the  right  about  and 
to  the  left  about ;  he  is  a  soldier.  The  money 
and  the  circulation  are  the  same  in  both  cases ; 
but  in  the  one  there  were  three  hundred  days  of 
productive  labor,  in  the  other  there  are  three 
hundred  days  of  unproductive  labor,  supposing, 
of  course,  that  a  part  of  the  arm}'-  is  not  indispen- 
sable to  the  public  safety. 

Now,  suppose  the  disbanding  to  take  place. 
You  tell  me  there  will  be  a  surplus  of  a  hundred 
thousand  workers,  tliat  competition  will  be  stimu- 
lated, and  it  will  reduce  the  rate  of  wages.  This 
is  wliat  you  see. 

But  what  you  do  not  see  is  this.  You  do  not 
see  that  to  dismiss  a  hundred  thousand  soldiers  is 
not  to  annihilate  or  use  up  the  fifty  millions  of 
money,  but  to  return  it  to  the  tax-payers.  You 
do  not  see  that  to  throw  a  hundred  tliousand 
workers  on  the  market,  is  to  throw  into  it,  at  the 
same  moment,  the  fifty  millions  of  money  needed 
to  pay  for  their  labor:  that,  consequently,  the 
same  act  which  increases  the  supply  of  hands, 
increases  also  the  demand ;  from  which  it  follows, 
that  your  fear  of  a  reduction  of  wages  is  unfound- 
ed.    You  do  not  see  that,  before  the  disbanding 


82  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

as  well  as  after  it,  there  are  in  the  country  fifty 
millions  of  money  corresponding  with  the  hundred 
thousand  men.  That  the  whole  difference  consists 
in  this :  before  the  disbanding,  the  country  gave 
the  fifty  millions  to  the  hundred  thousand  men  for 
doing  nothing ;  and  that  after  it,  it  pays  them  the 
same  sum  for  working.  You  do  not  see,  in  short, 
that  when  a  tax-payer  gives  his  money  either  to  a 
soldier  in  exchange  for  nothing ;  or  to  a  worker  in 
exchange  for  something,  all  the  ultimate  conse- 
quences of  the  circulation  of  this  money  are  the 
same  in  the  two  cases  j  only,  in  the  second  case 
the  tax-payer  receives  something,  in  the  former 
he  receives  nothing.  The  result  is — a  dead  loss  to 
the  nation. 

The  sophism  which  I  am  here  combating  will 
not  stand  the  test  of  progression,  which  is  the 
touchstone  of  principles.  If,  when  every  compen- 
sation is  made,  and  all  interests  satisfied,  there  is. a 
national  jprqfit  in  increasing  the  army,  why  not 
enlist  as  soldiers  the  entire  male  population  of  the 
country? 

III.— TAXES. 

Have  you  never  chanced  to  hear  it  said :  **  There 
is  no  better  investment  than  taxes.  Only  see 
what  a  number  of  families  it  maintains,  and  con- 
sider how  it  reacts  upon  industry :  it  is  an  inex- 
haustible stream,  it  is  life  itself." 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  83 

In  order  to  combat  this  doctrine,  I  must  refer  to 
my  preceding  refutation.  Political  economy  knew 
well  enough  that  its  arguments  were  not  so  amus- 
ing that  it  could  be  said  of  them,  repetitions 
please.  It  has,  therefore,  turned  .the  proverb  to 
its  own  use,  well  convinced  that,  in  its  mouth, 
rej>etitio7is  teach. 

The  advantao^es  which  officials  advocate  are 
those  which  are  seen.  The  benefit  which  accrues 
to  the  providers  is  still  that  lohich  is  seen.  This 
blinds  all  eyes. 

But  the  disadvantages  which  the  tax-payers 
hate  to  get  rid  of  are  those  which  are  not  seen. 
And  the  injury  which  results  from  it  to  the  pro- 
viders is  still  that  which  is  not  seen,  although  this 
ought  to  be  self-evident. 

AYhen  an  official  spends  for  his  own  advantage 
an  extra  hundred  cents,  it  implies  that  a  tax-payer 
spends  for  his  profit  a  hundred  cents  less.  But 
the  expense  of  the  official  is  seen,  because  the  act 
is  performed,  while  that  of  the  tax-payer  is  not  seen, 
because,  alas  !  he  is  prevented  from  performing  it. 

You  compare  the  nation,  perhaps,  to  a  parched 
tract  of  land,  and  the  tax  to  a  fertilizing  rain.  Be 
it  so.  But  you  ought  also  to  ask  yourself  where 
are  the  sources  of  this  rain,  and  whether  it  is  not 
the  tax  itself  which  draws  awa}^  the  moisture  from 
the  ground  and  dries  it  up  ? 


84  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

Again,  yon  ought  to  ask  yourself  whether  it  is 
possihU^  that  the  soil  can  rocoivo  as  nuioh  of  this 
precious  water  by  rain  as  it  loses  by  evaporation  ? 

There  is  one  thing  very  certain,  that  when 
James  counts  a  linndred  cents  for  the  tax- 
gatherer,  he  receives  nothing  immediately  in  re- 
turn. Afterwards,  when  an  othcial  spends  three 
hundred  cents  and  returns  them  to  James,  it  is 
for  an  equal  value  in  corn  or  labor.  The  final 
result  is  a  loss  to  James  of  a  dollar. 

It  is  very  true  that  often,  perhaps  very  often, 
the  official  performs  for  James  an  equivalent  ser- 
vice. In  this  case  there  is  no  loss  on  either  side ; 
there  is  merely  aii  exchange.  Therefore,  my 
arguments  do  not  at  all  apply  to  useful  function- 
aries. All  I  say  is — if  you  wish  to  create  an 
office,  prove  its  utility.  Show  that  its  value  to 
James,  by  the  services  which  it  performs  for  him, 
is  equal  to  what  it  costs  him.  But,  apart  from 
this  intrinsic  utility,  do  not  bring  forward  as  an 
argument  the  benefit  which  it  confei*s  upon  the 
official,  his  tamily,  and  his  providers ;  do  not 
assert  that  it  encourages  labor. 

"When  James  gives  a  hundred  cents  to  a  Govern- 
ment officer  for  a  really  useful  service,  it  is  ex- 
actly the  same  as  when  he  gives  a  hundred  cents 
to  a  shoemaker  for  a  pair  of  shoes. 

But  when  James  gives  a  hundred  cents  to  a 


THAT  WHICH  IS  KOT  SmrTT.  85 

GovcmiTjcTit  oflicer,  and  receives  not; nug  for  them 
un\e»»  it  be  annoyances,  Le  might  aa  well  give 
them  to  a  thief.  It  is  non»en»e  to  say  that  the 
Government  officer  will  spend  these  hundred 
cents  to  the  great  profit  of  natioruil  lalor ;  the 
thief  would  do  the  same ;  and  so  would  James, 
if  he  had  not  been  stopped  on  the  road  by  the 
legal  parasite,  or  by  the  lawful  sponger. 

Let  UB  accustom  ourselves,  then,  to  avoid  judg- 
ing of  things  by  what  is  seen  only,  but  to  judge 
of  therri  by  that  which  is  not  seen. 

Last  year  I  was  on  the  Committee  of  Finance 
in  the  French  National  Assembly.  Every  time 
tliat  one  of  my  colleagues  spoke  of  fixing  at  a 
moderate  figure  the  maintenance  of  the  President 
of  the  Republic,*  that  of  the  ministers,  and  of  the 
ambassadors,  it  was  answered  : — 

"  For  the  good  of  the  service,  it  is  necessary  to 
surround  certain  offices  with  splendor  and  dignity, 
as  a  means  of  attracting  men  of  merit  to  them. 
A  vast  number  of  unfortunate  persons  apply  to 
the  President  of  the  Republic,  and  it  would  be 
placing  him  in  a  very  painful  position  to  oblige 
him  to  be  constantly  refusing  them.  A  certain 
style  in  the  ministerial  saloons  is  a  part  of  the 
machinery  of  constitutional  Governments." 

*  Tlien  Loais  Napoleon. 


86  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

Altliougli  sucli  arguments  may  be  despised, 
they  nevertheless  deserve  a  serious  examination. 
They  are  based  upon  the  public  interest,  whether 
rightly  estimated  or  not ;  and,  as  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, I  have  much  more  respect  for  them  than 
many  of  our  Catos  have,  who  are  actuated  by  a 
narrow  spirit  of  parsimony  or  jealousy. 

But  what  revolts  the  economical  part  of  my 
conscience,  and  makes  me  blush  for  the  intellec- 
tual attainments  of  my  countrymen,  is  the  favor- 
able reception  which  is  almost  always  accorded  to 
the  following  proposition  :  "  The  luxury  of  great 
Government  officers  encourages  the  arts,  industry, 
and  labor.  The  head  of  the  State  and  his  minis- 
ters cannot  give  banquets  and  soirees  without 
causing  life  to  circulate  through  all  the  veins  of 
the  social  body.  To  reduce  their  means  would 
starve  Parisian  industry,  and  consequently  that  of 
the  whole  nation." 

I  must  beg  you,  gentlemen,  to  pay  some  little 
regard  to  arithmetic,  at  least ;  and  not  to  say  be- 
fore the  National  Assembly  in  France  (lest  to  its 
shame  it  should  agree  with  you),  that  an  addition 
gives  a  different  sum,  according  to  whether  it  is 
added  up  from  the  bottom  to  the  top,  or  from  the 
top  to  the  bottom  of  the  column. 

For  instance,  I  want  to  agree  with  a  drainer  to 
make  a  trench  in  my  field  for  a  hundred  sous. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  87 

Just  as  we  liave  concluded  our  arrangeinent  the 
tax-gatherer  comes,  takes  my  hundred  sous,  and 
the  national  revenue  being  to  this  extent  aug- 
mented, the  salary  of  some  great  minister  is  aug- 
mented in  a  like  degree.  My  bargain,  liowever, 
is  at  an  end,  but  the  minister  will  have  anotlier  dish  ' 
added  to  his  table.  Upon  what  ground  will  you 
dare  to  affirm  that  this  official  expense  helps  the 
national  industry  ?  Do  you  not  see,  that  in  this 
there  is  only  a  reversing  of  satisfaction  and 
labor?  A  minister  has  his  table  better  covered, 
it  is  true ;  but  it  is  just  as  true  that  an  agricul- 
turist'has  his  field  worse  drained.  A  Parisian 
tavern-keeper  has  gained  a  hundred  sous,  I  grant 
you  ;  but  then  you  must  grant  me  that  a  drainer 
has  been  prevented  from  gaining  live  francs.  It 
all  comes  to  this — that  the  official  and  the  tavern- 
keeper  being  satisfied,  is  that  which  is  seen  ^ 
the  field  undrained  and  the  drainer  deprived  of 
his  job,  is  that  which  is  not  seen.  Dear  me  !  how 
much  trouble  there  is  in  proving  that  two  and 
two  make  four  ;  and  if  you  succeed  in  proving  it, 
it  is  said  "  the  thing  is  so  plain  it  is  quite  tire- 
some," and  they  keep  on  legislating  in  the  same 
old  way,  as  if  you  had  proved  nothing  at  all. 

IV.— THEATRES,   FINE    ARTS. 

Ought  the  State  to  encourage  the  arts  ? 


88  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,  AND 

There  is  certainly  miicli  to  be  said  on  botli 
sides  of  this  question.  It  may  be  said,  in  favor 
of  the  system  of  voting  supplies  for  this  purpose, 
that  the  arts  enlarge,  elevate,  and  harmonize  the 
soul  of  a  nation ;  that  they  divert  it  from  too 
great  an  absorption  in  material  occupations ;  en- 
courage in  it  a  love  for  the  beautiful ;  and  thus 
act  favorably  on  its  manners,  customs,  morals, 
and  even  on  its  industry.  It  may  be  asked,  what 
would  become  of  music  in  France  without  her 
Italian  theatre  and  her  Conservatoire ;  of  the 
dramatic  art,  without  her  Theatre-Fran^ais ;  of 
painting  and  sculpture,  without  our  collections, 
galleries,  and  museums?  It  might  even  be  asked 
w^hether,  without  centralization,  and  consequently 
the  support  of  the  fine  arts,  that  exquisite  taste 
would  be  developed  which  is  the  noble  appendage 
of  French  labor,  and  which  introduces  its  produc- 
tions to  the  whole  world  ?  In  the  face  of  such 
results,  would  it  not  be  the  height  of  imprudence 
to  renounce  this  moderate  contribution  from  all 
her  citizens,  which,  in  fact,  in  the  eyes  of  Europe, 
demonstrates  their  superiority  and  their  glory  ? 

To  these  and  many  other  reasons,  whose  force 
I  do  not  dispute,  arguments  no  less  forcible  may 
be  opposed.  It  might  first  of  all  be  said,  that 
there  is  a  question  of  distributive  justice  in 
it.     Does  the  riglit  of  the  legislator  extend  to 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEK.  89 

abridging  the  wages  of  tlie  artisan,  for  the  sake 
of  adding  to  the  profits  of  the  artists  ?  M.  La- 
martine  said,  "  If  you  cease  to  support  the  theatre, 
w^iere  will  you  stop  ?  Will  you  not  necessarily  be 
led  to  withdraw  your  support  from  your  colleges, 
your  museums,  your  institutes,  and  your  libraries  ? " 
It  might  be  answered,  if  you  desire  to  support 
everything  which  is  good  and  useful,  where  will  you 
stop  ?  Will  you  not  necessarily  be  led  to  make 
regular  appropriations  for  agriculture,  industry, 
commerce,  benevolence,  education  ?  Then,  is  it 
certain  that  Government  aid  favors  the  progress  of 
art  ?  This  question  is  far  from  being  settled,  and 
we  see  very  well  that  the  theatres  which  prosper 
most  are  those  which  depend  most  upon  their  own 
resources.  Moreover,  if  we  come  to  higher  con- 
siderations, we  may  observe  that  wants  and  de- 
sires arise  the  one  from  the  other,  and  originate 
in  regions  which  are  more  and  more  refined  in 
proportion  as  the  public  wealth  allows  of  their 
being  satisfied;  that  Government  ought  not  to 
take  part  in  this  correspondence,  because  in  a  cer- 
tain condition  of  present  fortune  it  could  not  by 
taxation  stimulate  the  arts  of  necessity  without 
checking  those  of  luxury,  and  thus  interrupting 
the  natural  course  of  civilization.  I  may  observe, 
that  these  artificial  transpositions  of  wants,  tastes, 
labor,  and  population,  place  the  people  in  a  pre- 


90  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

carious  and  dangerous  position,  without  any  solid 
basis. 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons  alleged  by  the 
adversaries  of  State  intervention  in  what  concerns 
the  order  in  which  citizens  think  their  wants  and 
desires  should  be  satisfied,  and  to  which,  conse- 
quently, their  activity  should  be  directed.  I  am, 
I  confess,  one  of  those  who  think  that  choice  and 
impulse  ought  to  come  from  below  and  not  from 
above,  from  the  citizen  and  not  from  the  legis- 
lator ;  and  the  opposite  doctrine  appears  to  me 
to  tend  to  the  destruction  of  liberty  and  of  human 
dignity. 

But,  by  a  deduction  as  false  as  it  is  unjust,  do 
you  know  what  economists  are  accused  of  ?  It  is, 
that  when  we  disapprove  of  government  support, 
we  are  supposed  to  disapprove  of  the  thing  itself 
whose  support  is  discussed ;  and  to  be  the  enemies 
of  every  kind  of  activity,  because  we  desire  to  see 
those  activities,  on  the  one  hand  free,  and  on  the 
other  seeking  their  own  reward  in  themselves. 
Thus,  if  we  think  that  the  State  should  not  inter- 
fere by  taxation  in  religious  affairs,  we  are  athe- 
ists. If  we  think  the  State  ought  not  to  inter- 
fere by  taxation  in  education,  we  are  hostile  to 
knowledge.  If  we  say  that  the  State  ought  not 
by  taxation  to  give  a  fictitious  value  to  land,  or  to 
any  particular  branch  of  industry,  we  are  enemies 


THAT   WHICH   IS   NOT   SEEN.  91 

to  property  and  labor.  If  we  think  tliat  tlie 
State  ought  not  to  support  artists,  we  are  bar- 
barians, who  look  upon  the  arts  as  useless. 

Against  such  conclusions  as  these  I  protest  w^ith 
all  my  strength.  Far  from  entertaining  the  ab- 
surd idea  of  doing  away  with  religion,  education, 
property,  labor,  and  the  arts,  when  we  say  that 
the  State  ought  to  protect  the  free  development 
of  all  these  kinds  of  human  activity,  wdthout 
helping  some  of  them  at  the  expense  of  others — 
w^e  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  all  these  living 
powers  of  society  would  develop  themselves  more 
harmoniously  under  the  influence  of  liberty;  and 
that,  under  such  an  influence,  no  one  of  them 
would,  as  is  now  often  the  case,  be  a  source  of 
trouble,  of  abuses,  of  tyranny,  and  disorder. 
•  Our  adversaries  consider  that  an  activity  which 
is  neither  aided  by  supplies,  nor  regulated  by  gov- 
ernment, is  an  activity  destroyed.  We  think  just 
the  contrary.  Their  faith  is  in  the  legislator,  not 
in  mankind ;  ours  is  in  mankind,  not  in  the  legis- 
lator. 

Thus  M.  Lamartine  said  :  "  Upon  this  principle 
we  must  abolish  the  public  exliibitions,  wdiich  are 
the  honor  and  the  wealth  of  this  country."  But 
I  would  say  to  M.  Lamartine — According  to  your 
way  of  thinking,  not  to  support  is  to  abolish ;  be- 
cause setting  out  upon  the  maxim  that  nothing 


92  THAT  WHICH   IS  SEEN,  AND 

exists  independently  of  the  will  of  tlie  State,  you 
conclude  that  nothing  lives  but  what  the  State 
causes  to  live. 

To  return  to  tlie  fine  arts.  There  are,  I  repeat, 
many  strong  reasons  to  be  brought,  both  for  and 
against  the  system  of  government  assistance.  The 
reader  must  see  that  the  especial  object  of  this 
work  leads  me  neither  to  explain  these  reasons, 
nor  to  decide  in  their  favor,  nor  against  them. 

But  M.  Lamartine  has  advanced  one  argument 
which  I  cannot  pass  by  in  silence,  for  it  is  closely  con- 
nected with  this  economic  study.  "  The  econom- 
ical question,  as  regards  theatres,  is  comprised  in 
one  word — labor.  It  matters  little  what  is  the 
nature  of  this  labor ;  it  is  as  fertile,  as  productive 
a  labor  as  any  other  kind  of  labor  in  the  nation. 
The  theatres  in  France,  you  know,  feed  and  sal- 
ary no  less  than  80,000  workmen  of  different  kinds ; 
painters,  masons,  decorators,  costumers,  architects, 
&c.,  which  constitute  the  very  life  and  movement 
of  several  parts  of  the  capital,  and  on  this  account 
they  ought  to  have  your  sympathies."  Your 
sympathies !  say  rather  your  money. 

And  further  on  he  says :  "  The  pleasures  of 
Paris  are  the  labor  and  the  consumption  of  the 
provinces,  and  the  luxuries  of  the  rich  are  the 
wages  and  bread  of  200,000  workmen  of  every  de- 
scription, who  live  by  the  manifold  in  dust  17  of 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  93 

the  theatres,  and  who  receive  from  these  noble 
pleasures,  which  render  France  illustrious,  the  sus- 
tenance of  their  lives  and  the  necessaries  of  their 
families  and  children.  It  is  to  them  that  you  will 
give  60,000  francs."  O^eiT  well;  very  well. 
Great  applause.)  For  my  part  I  am  constrained 
to  say,  "  Yery  bad !  very  bad ! "  confining  this 
opinion,  of  course,  within  the  bounds  of  the  econ- 
omical question  w^hich  we  are  discussing. 

Yes,  it  is  to  the  workmen  of  the  theatres  that  a 
part,  at  least,  of  these  60,000  francs  will  go  ;  a  few 
bribes,  perhaps,  may  be  abstracted  on  the  way. 
Perhaps,  if  we  were  to  look  a  little  more  closely 
into  the  matter,  we  might  find  that  the  cake  had 
gone  another  way,  and  that  those  workmen  were 
fortunate  who  had  come  in  for  a  few  crumbs.  But 
I  will  allow,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 
entire  sum  does  go  to  the  painters,  decorators,  &c. 

This  is  that  which  is  seen.  But  whence  does 
it  come  ?  This  is  the  other  side  of  the  question, 
and  quite  as  important  as  the  former.  Where  do 
these  60,000  francs  spring  from?  and  where  would 
they  go,  if  a  vote  of  the  legislature  did  not  direct 
them  first  toward  the  Treasury  and  thence  toward 
the  theatres  ?  This  is  what  is  not  seen.  Certain- 
ly, nobody  will  think  of  maintaining  that  the 
legislative  vote  has  caused  this  sum  to  be  hatched 
in  a  ballot-box ;  that  it  is  a  pure  addition  made  to 


9i  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,   AND 

tlie  national  wealth  ;  that  but  for  this  miraculous 
vote  these  60,000  francs  would  have  been  for  ever 
invisible  and  impalpable.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  all  that  the  majoritj  can  do  is  to  decide  that 
they  shall  be  taken  from  one  place  to  be  sent  to 
another ;  and  if  they  take  one  direction,  it  is  only 
because  they  have  been  diverted  from  another. 

This  being  the  case,  it  is  clear  that  the  tax-payer, 
who  has  contributed  one  franc,  will  no  longer 
have  this  franc  at  his  own  disposal.  It  is  clear 
that  he  will  be  deprived  of  some  gratification  to 
the  amount  of  one  franc ;  and  that  the  workman, 
whoever  he  may  be,  who  would  have  received  it 
from  him  for  some  service,  will  be  deprived  of  a 
benefit  to  that  amount.  Let  us  not,  therefore,  be 
led  by  a  childish  illusion  into  believing  that  the 
vote  of  the  60,000  francs  may  add  anything  what- 
ever to  the  well-being  of  the  country,  and  to  na- 
tional labor.  It  displaces  enjoyments,  it  transposes 
wages — that  is  all. 

"Will  it  be  said  that  for  one  kind  of  gratification, 
and  one  kind  of  labor,  it  substitutes  more  urgent, 
more  moral,  more  reasonable  gratifications  and 
labor?  I  might  dispute  this;  I  might  say,  by 
taking  60,000  francs  from  the  tax-payers,  you 
diminish  the  wages  of  laborers,  drainers,  carpen- 
ters, blacksmiths,  and  increase  in  proportion  those 
of  the  singers  and  actors. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  95 

There  is  nothing  to  prove  that  this  latter  class 
calls  for  more  sympathy  than  the  former.  M. 
Lamartine  does  not  say  that  it  is  so.  He  himself 
says  that  the  labor  of  the  theatres  is  as  fertile,  as 
productiv^e  as  any  other  (not  more  so) ;  and  this 
may  be  doubted ;  for  the  best  proof  that  the  latter 
is  not  so  fertile  as  tlie  former  lies  in  this,  that  the 
other  is  to  be  called  upon  to  assist  it. 

But  this  comparison  between  the  value  and  the 
intrinsic  merit  of  different  kinds  of  labor  forms 
no  part  of  my  present  subject.  All  I  have  to  do 
here  is  to  show,  that  if  M.  Lamartine  and  those 
persons  who  commend  his  line  of  argument  have 
seen  on  one  side  the  salaries  gained  by  the  pro- 
mders  of  the  comedians,  they  ought  on  the  other 
to  have  seen  the  salaries  lost  by  the  jproviders  of 
the  tax-payers :  for  want  of  this,  they  have  ex- 
posed themselves  to  ridicule  by  mistaking  a  trans- 
ferment  for  a  gain.  If  they  were  true  to  their 
doctrine,  there  would  be  no  limits  to  their  demands 
for  government  aid ;  for  that  which  is  true  of  one 
franc  and  of  60,000  is  true,  under  parallel  circum- 
stances, of  a  hundred  millions  of  francs. 

When  taxes  are  the  subject  of  discussion,  you 
ought  to  prove  their  utility  by  reasons  from  the 
root  of  the  matter,  but  not  by  this  unlucky  asser- 
tion— "  The  public  expenses  support  the  working 
classes."     This  assertion  disguises  the  important 


96  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

fact,  thsit puhlio  expenses  always  supersede  private 
expenses^  and  that  therefore  we  bring  a  livelihood 
to  one  workman  instead  of  another,  but  add  noth- 
ing to  the  share  of  the  working  class  as  a'  whole. 
Your  arguments  are  fashionable  enough,  but  they 
are  too  absurd  to  be  justified  by  anything  like 
reason. 

v.— PUBLIC  WORKS. 

^Nothing  is  more  natural  than  that  a  nation,  after 
having  assured  itself  that  an  enterprise  will  benefit 
the  community,  should  have  it  executed  by  means 
of  a  general  assessment.  But  I  lose  patience,  I 
confess,  when  I  hear  some  one,  assuming  to  occupy 
a  high  moral,  patriotic,  and  economic  standpoint, 
assert,  ^'  that  to  authorize  the  prosecution  of  pub- 
lic works  will  be  a  means  of  creating  opportunity 
to  labor  for  the  workmen." 

The  State  opens  a  road,  builds  a  palace,  straight- 
ens a  street,  cuts  a  canal,  and  so  gives  work  to 
certain  workmen — tJds  is  ivhat  is  seen :  but  it  de- 
prives certain  other  workmen  of  work — and  this 
is  what  is  not  seen. 

The  road  is  begun.  A  thousand  workmen  come 
every  morning,  leave  every  evening,  and  take  their 
wages — this  is  certain.  If  the  road  had  not  been 
decreed,  if  the  supplies  had  not  been  voted,  these 
good  people  would  have  had  neither  work  nor 
wages  there ;  this  also  is  certain. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT   SEEN.  97 

But  is  this  all  ?  Does  not  the  operation,  as  a 
whole,  contain  something  else  ?  At  the  moment 
when  the  presiding  officer  annonnces  that  the  bill 
authorizing  the  inception  of  new  public  works  has 
become  a  law,  does  the  money  necessary  to  pay 
for  them  descend  miraculously  on  a  moonbeam  into 
the  national  coffers?  But  in  order  that  the  whole 
scheme  may  be  made  complete,  must  not  the  State 
organize  the  receipts  as  well  as  the  expenditure  ? 
must  it  not  set  its  tax-gatherers  and  tax-payers  to 
work,  the  former  to  gather  and  the  latter  to  pay. 

Study  the  question,  now,  in  both  its  elements. 
While  you  state  the  destination  given  by  the  State 
to  the  millions  voted,  do  not  neglect  to  state  also 
the  destination  which  the  tax-payer  would  have 
given,  but  cannot  now  give,  to  the  same.  Then 
you  will  understand  that  a  public  enterprise  is  a 
coin  with  two  sides.  Upon  one  is  engraved  a  la- 
borer at  work,  with  this  device,  that  which  is  seen  / 
on  the  other  is  a  laborer  out  of  work,  with  the 
device,  that  which  is  not  seen. 

The  sophism  which  this  work  is  intended  to 
refute  is  the  more  dangerous  when  applied  to  pub- 
lic works,  inasmuch  as  it  serves  to  justify  the  most 
wanton  enterprises  and  extravagance.  When  a 
railway  or  a  bridge  are  really  needed,  it  is  sufficient 
to  demonstrate  their  necessity  to  justify  an  appro- 
priation of  the  public  money  for  their  construction. 
5 


98  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,   AND 

But  if  this  immediate  necessity  cannot  be  demon- 
strated, what  do  the  philanthropic  patriotic  men 
next  saj  ? "     "  We  must  find  worhfor  the  worlcing 

r  Public  works  that  under  ordinary  circumstances 
would  not  be  thought  of  are  authorized  by  the 
public  authorities. 
«-^  The  great  Kapoleon,  it  is  said,  thought  he  was 
doing  a  very  philanthropic  work  by  causing 
ditches  to  be  made  and  then  filled  up.  He  said, 
therefore,  "What  signifies  the  result?  All  we 
want  is  to  see  wealth  spread  among  the  laboring 
classes." 

But  let  us  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  We 
are  deceived  by  money.  To  demand  the  co-oper- 
ation of  all  the  citizens  in  a  common  work,  in  the 
form  of  money,  is  in  reality  to  demand  a  co-oper- 
ation in  kind;  for  every  one  procures,  by  his  own 
labor,  the  sum  for  which  he  is  taxed.  Now,  if  all 
the  citizens  were  to  be  called  together,  and  made 
to  execute,  in  conjunction,  a  work  useful  to  all, 
this  would  be  easily  understood ;  their  reward 
w^ould  be  found  in  the  results  of  the  work  itself. 

But  after  having  called  them  together,  if  you 
force  them  to  make  roads  which  no  one  will  pass 
through,  palaces  which  no  one  will  inhabit,  and 
this  under  the  pretext  of  finding  them  work,  it 
would  be  absurd,  and  they  would  have  a  right  to 


THA.T  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  99 

argue,  "  With  this  labor  we  have  nothing  to  do ; 
we  prefer  working  on  our  own  account." 

A  proceeding  which  consists  in  making  the  citi- 
zens co-ojjerate  in  giving  money  but  not  labor 
does  not,  in  any  way,  alter  the  general  results. 
The  only  thing  is,  that  the  loss  would  react  upon 
all  parties.  By  the  former  those  whom  the  State 
employs  escape  their  part  of  the  loss,  by  adding 
it  to  that  which  their  fellow-citizens  have  already 
suffered. 

There  was  an  article  in  the  Constitution  which 
the  Republic  of  France  in  18J:8  adopted,  which 
read  as  follows : 

"  Society  favors  and  encourages  the  development 
of  labor — by  the  establishment  of  public  works, 
by  the  State,  the  departments,  and  the  parishes, 
as  a  means  of  employing  persons  wlio  are  in  want 
of  work." 

As  a  temporary  measure,  on  any  emergency, 
during  a  hard  winter,  this  interference  with  the 
tax-payers  may  have  its  use.  It  acts  in  the  same 
way  as  charity.  It  adds  nothing  either  to  labor 
or  to  wages,  but  it  takes  labor  and  wages  from  or- 
dinary times  to  give  them,  at  a  loss  it  is  true,  to 
times  of  difficulty. 

As  a  permanent,  general,  systematic  measure,  it 
is  nothing  else  than  a  ruinous  mystification,  an 
impossibility,  which  shows  a  little  excited  labor 


100  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

which  is  seen,  and  hides  a  great  deal  of  prevented 
labor  which  is  not  seen, 

VI.— THE  MIDDLE-MSN. 

Society  is  tlie  total  of  the  forced  or  voluntary 
services  which  men  perform  for  each  other  ;  that 
is  to  say,  o^ public  s&rvices  und  private  services. 

The  former,  imposed  and  regulated  by  the  law, 
which  it  is  not  always  easy  to  change,  even  when 
it  is  desirable,  may  survive  with  it  their  own  use- 
fulness, and  still  preserve  the  name  of  public  ser^ 
vices,  even  when  they  are  no  longer  services  at  all, 
but  v2it\\QY public  annoyances.  The  latter  belong 
to  the  sphere  of  the  will,  of  individual  responsi- 
bility. Every  one  gives  and  receives  what  he 
washes,  and  w^hat  he  can,  after  he  has  considered 
the  matter  in  his  own  mind.  The  exchange  of 
private  services  has  always  the  presumption  of  real 
utility,  in  exact  proportion  to  their  comparative 
value. 

This  is  the  reason  why  the  former  description 
of  services  so  often  become  stationary,  while  the 
latter  obey  the  law  of  progress. 

While  the  exaggerated  development  of  public 
services,  by  the  waste  of  strength  wdiich  it  involves, 
fastens  upon  society  a  ftital  sycophancy,  it  is  a  sin- 
gular thing  that  several  modern  sects,  attributing 
this  character  to  free  and  private  services,  are  en- 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT   SEEN."  101 

deavoring   to    transform   professions  into   func- 
tions. ,  *  y--  "  •  ^ 

These  sects  violently'  oppose  wlmt  tltej  ■  c?,ll 
intermediates.  Tliej  would  'giAdly  "snppVe^s"  the 
capitalist,  the  banker,  the  speculator,  the  projector, 
the  merchant  and  the  trader,  accusing  tliem  of  in- 
terposing between  production  and  consumption, 
to  extort  from  both,  without  giving  either  any- 
thing in  return.  Or  ratlier,  they  w^ould  transfer 
to  the  State  the  work  which  they  accomplish,  for 
this  work  cannot  be  suppressed. 

The  sophism  of  the  Socialists  on  this  point  con- 
sists in  showing  to  the  public  what  it  pays  to  the 
intermediates  in  exchange  for  then*  services,  and 
concealing  from  the  public  what  it  would  be 
necessary  to  pay  to  the  State  for  doing  the  same 
thing.  Here  is  the  usual  conflict  between  what, 
is  before  our  ejes  and  what  is  perceptible  to  the 
mind  only ;  between  what  is  seen  and  what^  is  not 
seen. 

It  was  at  the  time  of  the  scarcity  in  France,  in 
1847,  that  the  French  Socialists  attempted  and 
succeeded  in  popularizing  their  erroneous  theory. 
They  knew  very  well  that  the  most  absurd  no- 
tions have  always  a  chance  with  people  who  are 
Buffering;  malisunda fames. 

Therefore,  by  the  help  of  the  fine  words,  "  traf- 
ficking in  men  by  men,  speculation  on  hunger, 


102       THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

moaopply,-'  tbej, begfvnr to  deprecate  commerce, 
and  to  oast  a.d€Jn"bt'bvi?r'  its  benefits. 

/.' WliHt ' ( an. be  ;tli^  iise/'  thej  saj,  "of  leaving 
to  the  mercbants  the  car  e  of  importing  food  from 
the  United  States  and  the  Crimea  ?  "Why  do  not 
the  State,  the  departments,  and  the  towns,  organ- 
ize a  service  for  provisions  and  a  magazine  for 
stores  ?  They  would  sell  at  a  return  price,  and 
the  people,  poor  things,  would  be  exempted  from 
the  tribute  which  tliey  pay  to  free,  that  is,  to  ego- 
tistical, individual,  and  lawless  commerce." 

The  tribute  paid  by  the  people  to  commerce  is 
that  which  is  seen.  The  tribute  which  the  people 
would  pay  to  the  State,  or  to  its  agents,  in  the 
Socialist  system,  is  what  is  not  seen. 

In  what  does  this  pretended  tribute,  which  the 
people  pay  to  commerce,  consist  ?  In  this :  that 
two  men  render  each  other  a  mutual  service,  in 
all  freedom,  and  under  the  pressure  of  competition 
and  reduced  prices. 

When  the  hungry  stomach  is  at  Paris,  and  grain 
which  can  satisfy  it  is  at  Chicago,  tlie  suffering 
cannot  cease  till  the  grain  is  brought  into  contact 
with  the  stomach.  There  are  tliree  methods  by 
which  tliis  contact  may  be  effected.  1st.  The 
famished  men  may  go  themselves  and  fetch  the 
grain.  2d.  Tiiey  may  leave  this  task  to  those  to 
whose  trade  it  belongs.     3d.  They  may  club  to- 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  1( 

getlier,  and  give  tlie  office  in  charge  to  public 
functionaries.  Which  of  these  three  methods 
possesses  the  greatest  advantages  ?  In  every  time, 
in  all  countries,  and  the  more  free,  enlightened, 
and  experienced  they  are,  men  have  voluntarily 
chosen  the  second.  I  confess  that  this  is  sufficient, 
in  my  opinion,  to  justify  this  choice.  I  cannot 
believe  that  mankind,  as  a  whole,  is  deceiving  it- 
self upon  a  point  which  touches  its  interest  so 
closely.     But  let  us  now  consider  the  subject. 

For  thirty-six  millions  of  citizens  to  go  and  fetch 
the  grain  they  want  from  Cliicago,  is  a  manifest 
impossibility.  The  first  method,  then,  goes  for 
nothing.  The  consumers  cannot  act  for  themselves. 
The}"  must,  of  necessity,  have  recourse  to  inter- 
mediates^ officials  or  agents. 

But  observe,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  first  of 
these  three  methods  would  be  the  most  natural. 
In  reality,  the  hungry  man  has  to  fetch  his  grain. 
It  is  a  task  which  concerns  himself,  a  service  due 
to  himself.  If  another  person,  on  whatever  ground, 
performs  this  service  for  him,  takes  the  task  upon 
himself,  this  latter  has  a  claim  upon  him  for  a 
compensation.  I  mean  by  this  to  say,  that  inter- 
mediates contain  in  themselves  the  principle  of 
remuneration. 

However  that  may  be,  since  we  must  refer  to 
what  the  Socialists  call  a  parasite,  I  would  ask. 


104  THAT  WHICH   IS   SEEN,   AND 

which  of  the  two  is  the  most  exacting  parasite,  the 
merchant  or  the  official  ? 

Commerce  (free  of  course,  otherwise  I  could  not 
reason  upon  it),  commerce,  I  say,  is  led  by  its  own 
interests  to  study  the  seasons,  to  give  daily  state- 
ments of  the  state  of  the  crops,  to  receive  informa- 
tion from  every  part  of  the  globe,  to  foresee  wants, 
to  take  precautions  beforehand.  It  has  vessels 
always  ready,  correspondents  everywhere ;  and  it 
is  its  immediate  interest  to  buy  at  the  lowest  pos- 
sible price,  to  economize  in  all  the  details  of  its 
operations,  and  to  attain  the  greatest  results  by 
the  smallest  eiForts.  It  is  not  the  French  mer- 
chants only  who  are  occupied  in  procuring  pro- 
visions for  France  in  time  of  need ;  and  if  their 
interest  leads  them  irresistibly  to  accomplish  their 
task  at  the  smallest  possible  cost,  the  competition 
which  they  create  amongst  each  other  leads  them 
no  less  irresistibly  to  cause  the  consumers  to  par- 
take of  the  profits  of  those  realized  savings.  The 
grain  arrives :  it  is  to  the  interest  of  commerce  to 
sell  it  as  soon  as  possible,  so  as  to  avoid  risks,  to 
realize  its  investments  and  take  advantage  of  the 
first  opportunity  to  buy  again. 

Directed  by  the  comparison  of  prices,  commerce 
distributes  food  over  the  whole  surface  of  the 
country,  beginning  always  at  the  highest  price, 
that  is,  where  the  demand  is  the  greatest.     It  is 


THAT   WHICH  IS   NOT   SEEN.  105 

impossible  to  imagine  an  organization  more  com- 
pletely calculated  to  meet  the  interest  of  those  who 
are  in  want  than  the  existing  organization  of  com- 
merce, and  the  beauty  of  this  organization,  unper- 
ceived  as  it  is  by  the  Socialists,  results  from  the 
Yerj  fact  that  it  is  free.  It  is  true,  the  consumer 
is  obliged  to  reimburse  commerce  for  the  expenses 
of  conveyance,  freight,  store-rooms,  commissions, 
etc.,  but  can  any  system  be  devised  in  which  he  who 
eats  grain  is  not  obliged  to  defray  the  expenses, 
whatever  they  may  be,  of  bringing  it  within  his 
reach  ?  The  remuneration  for  the  service  performed 
has  to  be  paid  also ;  but  as  regards  its  amount, 
this  is  reduced  to  the  smallest  possible  sum  by  com- 
petition ;  and  as  regards  its  justice,  it  would  be  very 
strange  if  the  artisans  of  Paris  would  not  work  for 
the  artisans  of  Marseilles,  when  the  merchants  of 
Marseilles  work  for  the  artisans  of  Paris. 

But  if,  according  to  the  Socialist  ideas,  the  State 
were  to  stand  in  the  place  of  commerce,  w^liat 
would  happen?  I  should  like  to  be  informed' 
where  the  saving  would  be  to  the  public  ?  Would 
it  be  in  the  price  of  purchase  ?  Imagine  the  dele- 
gates of  40,000  parishes  arriving  at  Chicago  on  a 
given  day,  and  on  the  day  of  need  :  imagine  the 
effect  upon  prices.  Would  the  saving  be  in  the 
expenses  ?  Would  fewer  vessels  be  required ; 
fewer  sailors,  fewer  teamsters,  fewer  railways  ?  or 


106  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

would  you  be  exempt  from  the  payment  of  all 
these  things  ?  Would  it  be  in  the  profits  of  the 
merchants?  Would  your  officials  go  to  Chicago 
for  nothing  ?  Would  they  travel  and  work  on  tlie 
principle  of  fraternity?  Must  they  not  live? 
Must  not  they  be  paid  for  their  time  ?  And  do 
you  believe  that  these  expenses  would  not  exceed 
a  thousand  times  the  two  or  three  per  cent,  which 
the  merchant  gains,  at  the  rate  at  which  he  is  ready 
to  treat  ? 

And  then  consider  the  difficulty  of  levying  so 
many  taxes,  and  of  dividing  so  much  food.  Think 
of  the  injustice,  of  the  abuses  inseparable  from 
such  an  enterprise.  Think  of  the  responsibility 
which  would  weigh  upon  the  Government. 

The  Socialists,  who  have  invented  these  follies, 
and  who,  in  the  days  of  distress,  have  introduced 
them  into  the  minds  of  the  masses,  take  to  them- 
selves literally  the  title  of  advanced  men  j  and  it 
is  not  without  some  danger  that  custom,  that  ty- 
rant of  tongues,  authorizes  the  term,  and  the  senti- 
ment which  it  involves.  Advanced  I  This  sup- 
poses that  these  gentlemen  can  see  further  than 
the  common  people ;  that  their  only  fault  is  that 
they  are  too  much  in  advance  of  their  age ;  and 
if  the  time  is  not  yet  come  for  suppressing  certain 
parasites  on  the  people,  the  fault  is  to  be  attribu- 
ted to  the  public  which  is  in  the  rear  of  Socialism. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  107 

I  say,  from  ray  soul  and  my  conscience,  the  reverse 
is  tlie  trntli ;  and  I  know  not  to  what  barbarous 
age  we  should  have  to  go  back,  if  we  would  find 
the  level  of  Socialist  knowledge  on  this  subject. 
These  modern  sectarians  incessantly  oppose  asso- 
ciation to  actual  society.  They  overlook  the  fact 
that  society,  under  a  free  regulation,  is  a  true 
association,  far  superior  to  any  of  those  which 
proceed  from  their  fertile  imaginations. 

Let  me  illustrate  this  by  an  exam2:)le.  Before 
a  man,  when  he  gets  up  in  the  morning,  can  put 
on  a  coat,  ground  must  have  been  enclosed,  broken 
up,  drained,  tilled,  and  sown  with  a  particular 
kind  of  plant;  flocks  must  have  been  fed,  and 
have  given  their  wool ;  this  wool  must  have  been 
spun,  woven,  dyed,  and  converted  into  cloth ;  this 
cloth  must  have  been  cut,  sewed,  and  made  into  a 
garment.  And  this  series  of  operations  implies 
a  number  of  others;  it  supposes  the  employment 
of  Instruments  for  plowing,  &c.,  sheepfolds,  sheds, 
coal,  machines,  carriages,  &c. 

If  society  were  not  a  perfectly  real  association, 
a  person  who  wanted  a  coat  would  be  reduced  to 
the  necessity  of  working  in  solitude  ;  that  is,  of 
yjerforming  for  himself  the  innumerable  parts  of 
this  series,  from  the  first  stroke  of  the  pickaxe  to 
the  last  stitch  which  concludes  the  work.  But, 
thanks  to  the  power  of  association  and  co-opera' 


108  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

tion,  wliicli  is  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of 
our  race,  these  operations  are  distributed  amongst 
a  multitude  of  workers ;  and  they  are  furtlier 
subdivided,  for  the  common  good,  to  an  extent 
that,  as  the  consumption  becomes  more  active, 
one  single  o];)eration  is  able  to  support  a  new 
trade. 

Then  comes  the  division  of  the  profits,  which 
operates  according  to  the  contingent  value  which 
each  has  brought  to  the  entire  work.  If  this  is 
not  association,  I  sliould  like  to  know  what  is. 

Observe,  that  as  no  one  of  these  workers  Ims 
obtained  the  smallest  j)article  of  matter  from 
nothingness,  they  are  confined  to  performing  for 
each  other  mutual  services,  and  to  helping  each 
otlier  in  a  common  object,  and  that  all  may  be 
considered,  with  respect  to  others,  inter  mediates. 
If,  for  instance,  in  the  course  of  the  operation, 
the  transportation  becomes  important  enough  to 
occupy  one  person,  the  spinning  anotlier,  the 
weaving  another,  why  should  the  first  be  con- 
sidered a  parasite  more  than  the  other  two  ?  The 
transportation  must  be  made,  must  it  not  ?  Does 
not  he  who  performs  it  devote  to  it  his  time  and 
trouble?  and  by  so  doing  does  he  not  spare  that 
of  his  colleao^ues  ?  Do  these  do  more  or  other 
than  this  for  him  ?  Are  they  not  equally  depen- 
dent for  remuneration,  that  is,  for  the  division  of 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  109 

the  procliice,  upon  the  law  of  reduced  price  ?  Is 
it  not,  in  all  liberty,  for  the  common  good  that 
this  separation  of  work  takes  place,  and  that  these 
arrangements  are  entered  into?  What  do  we 
want  with  a  reformer  then,  who,  under  pretense 
of  organizing  for  us,  comes  despotically  to  break 
np  our  voluntarj^  arrangements,  to  check  the  divi- 
sion of  labor,  to  substitute  isolated  efforts  for 
combined  ones,  and  to  send  civilization  back  ?  Is 
association,  as  I  describe  it  here,  in  itself  less  as- 
sociation, because  every  one  enters  and  leaves  it 
freely,  chooses  his  place  in  it,  judges  and  bargains 
for  himself  on  his  own  responsibility,  and  brings 
with  him  the  spring  and  warrant  of  personal  in- 
terest ?  That  it  may  deserve  this  name,  is  it 
necessary  that  a  pretended  reformer  should  come 
and  impose  upon  us  his  plan  and  his  will,  and,  as 
it  were,  to  concentrate  mankind  in  himself  ? 

The  more  we  examine  these  advanced  schools^ 
the  more  do  we  become  convinced  that  there  is 
but  one  thing  at  the  root  of  them;  ignorance  pro-. 
claiming  itself  infallible,  and  claiming  despotism 
in  the  name  of  this  infallibility. 

VII.  —RESTRICTIONS. 

]VIr.  Prohibitionist,  who  was  always  talking 
about  the  necessity  of  fostering  domestic  industry, 
devoted  his  time  and  capital  to  converting  the  ore 


110  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

found  on  liis  land  into  iron.  As  nature  had  been 
more  lavish  towards  the  Belgians,  they  furnished 
tlie  French  with  iron  cheaper  than  Mr.  Prohibi- 
tionist ;  which  means,  that  all  the  French,  or 
France,  could  obtain  a  given  quantity  of  iron  with 
less  labor  by  buying  it  of  the  honest  Flemings. 
Therefore,  guided  by  their  own  interest,  they  did 
not  fail  to  do  so ;  and  every  day  there  might  be 
seen  a  multitude  of  nail-smiths,  blacksmiths, 
cartwrights,  machinists,  farriers,  and  laborers, 
going  themselves,  or  sending  intermediates,  to 
supply  themselves  in  Belgium.  This  displeased 
Mr.  Prohibitionist  and  his  friends  exceedingly. 

At  first,  it  occurred  to  him  to  put  an  end  to  this 
abuse  by  his  own  efforts  :  it  was  the  least  he  could 
do,  for  he  was  the  only  sufferer.  ^'  I  will  take 
my  gun,"  said  he ;  "I  will  put  four  pistols  into 
my  belt ;  I  wdll  fill  my  cartridge  box  ;  I  will  gird 
on  my  sword,  and  go  thus  equipped  to  the  fi-on- 
tier.  There,  the  first  blacksmith,  nail-smith,  far- 
rier, machinist,  or  locksmitli,  who  presents  him- 
self to  do  his  own  business  and  not  mine,  I  will 
kill,  to  teach  him  how  to  live."  At  the  moment 
of  starting,  Mr.  Prohibitionist  made  a  few  reflec- 
tions which  calmed  down  his  warlike  ardor  a  little. 
He  said  to  himself,  "In  the  first  place,  it  is  not 
absolutely  impossible  that  the  purchasers  of  iron, 
my  countrymen  and   enemies,  should  take   the 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  Ill 

tliiijg  ill,  and,  instead  of  letting  me  kill  tliem, 
should  kill  me  instead  ;  and  then,  even  were  I  to 
call  out  all  my  servants,  we  should  not  be  able  to 
defend  the  passages.  In  short,  this  proceeding 
would  cost  me  very  dear,  much  more  so  than  the 
result  would  be  worth." 

Mr.  Prohibitionist  was  on  the  point  of  resign- 
ing himself  to  his  sad  fate,  that  of  being  only  as 
free  as  the  rest  of  the  world,  when  a  ray  of  light 
darted  across  his  brain.  He  recollected  that  at 
Paris  there  is  a  great  manufactory  of  laws. 
"  What  is  a  law  ?  "  said  he  to  himself.  "  It  is  a 
measure  to  which,  when  once  it  is  decreed,  be  it 
good  or  bad,  everybody  is  bound  to  conform. 
For  the  execution  of  the  same  a  public  force  is  or- 
ganized, and  to  constitute  the  said  public  force, 
men  and  money  are  drawn  from  the  whole  nation. 
If,  then,  I  could  only  get  the  great  Parisian  law- 
manufactory  to  pass  a  little  law,  '  Belgian  iron  is 
hereafter  proliibited^  I  should  obtain  the  follow- 
ing results  : — The  Government  would  replace  the 
few  valets  that  I  was  going  to  send  to  tlie  fron- 
tier by  20,000  of  the  sons  of  those  refractory 
blacksmiths,  farriers,  artisans,  machinists,  lock- 
smiths, nail-smiths,  and  laborers.  Then  to  keep 
these  20,000  custom-house  officers  in  health  and 
good  humor,  it  would  distribute  among  them 
25,000,000  of  francs  taken  from  these  blacksmiths, 


112  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,   AND 

nail-smitlis,  artisans,  and  laborers.  They  would 
guard  tlie  frontier  much  better ;  would  cost  me 
nothing ;  I  should  not  be  exposed  to  the  brutality 
of  the  brokers ;  should  sell  the  iron  at  my  own 
price,  and  have  the  sweet  satisfaction,  of  seeing 
our  great  people  thoroughly  humbugged.  Then 
they  sliould  be  encouraged  to  continually  style 
tjiemselves  as  promoters  of  domestic  industry, 
and  as  always  and  under  all  circumstances  opposed 
to  competition  with  the  pauper  labor  of  other 
countries.  Oh !  it  would  be  a  capital  joke,  and 
deserves  to  be  tried." 

So  our  friend  Prohibitionist  went  to  tlie  law 
manufactory.  Another  time,  perhaps,  I  shall  re- 
late the  story  of  his  underhand  dealings,  but  now 
I  shall  merely  mention  his  visible  proceedings. 
He  brought  the  following  consideration  before  the 
minds  of  the  legislating  gentlemen — 

"  Belgian  iron  is  sold  in  France  at  ten  francs, 
which  obliges  me  to  sell  mine  at  the  same  price.  I 
sliould  like  to  sell  at  iifteen,  but  cannot  do  so  on 
account  of  this  Belgian  iron,  which  I  wish  was  at 
the  bottom  of  the  Red  Sea.  I  beg  you  will  make 
a  law  that  no  more  Belgian  iron  shall  enter  France. 
Immediately  I  will  raise  my  price  five  francs,  and 
these  are  the  consequences : 

"For  every  hundred-weight  of  iron  that  I  shall 
deliver  to  the  public,  I  shall  receive  iifteen  francs 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  113 

instead  of  ten ;  I  shall  grow  rich  more  rapidly, 
extend  my  traffic,  and  employ  more  workmen. 
My  workmen  and  I  shall  spend  much  more  freely, 
to  the  great  advantage  of  our  tradesmen  for  miles 
around.  These  latter,  having  more  custom,  will 
furnish  more  employment  to  trade,  and  activity 
on  both  sides  will  increase  in  the  country.  This 
additional  sum  of  money  which  you  will  drop  into 
my  strong-box,  will,  like  a  stone  thrown  into  a 
lake,  give  birth  to  an  infinite  number  of  concentric 
circTes  of  wealth  and  render  everybody  embraced 
by  them  comfortable  and  happy." 

Charmed  with  his  discourse,  delighted  to  learn 
that  it  is  so  easy  to  promote,  by  legislating,  the 
prosperity  of  a  people,  the  law-makers  voted  the 
restriction.  "  Talk  of  labor  and  economy,"  they 
said,  "  what  is  the  use  of  these  painful  means  of 
increasing  the  national  wealth,  when  all  that  is 
needed  for  this  object  is  to  pass  a  law  imposing  a 
tax?" 

And,  in  fact,  the  law  produced  all  the  conse- 
quences announced  by  Mr.  Prohibitionist :  but  it 
is  also  to  be  noted,  that  it  produced  others  ^vhich 
he  had  not  foreseen.  To  do  him  justice,  his  rea- 
soning was  not  false,  but  only  incomplete.  In  en- 
deavoring to  obtain  a  privilege,  he  had  taken 
cognizance  of  the  effects  which  are  seen,  leaving 
in  the  background  those  which  are  not  seen.     He 


114  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

had  pointed  out  only  two  personages,  whereas 
there  are  three  concerned  in  the  affair.  It  is  for 
ns  to  supply  this  involuntary  or  premeditated 
omission. 

It  is  true,  the  money,  thus  directed  by  law  into 
Mr.  Prohibitionist's  strong-box,  is  advantageous 
to  him  and  to  those  whose  labor  it  would  encour- 
age; and  if  the  Act  had  caused  the  money  to 
descend  from  the  moon,  these  good  effects  would 
not  have  been  counterbalanced  by  any  correspond- 
ing evils.  But  unfortunately,  the  mysterious 
money  does  not  come  from  the  moon,  but  from 
the  pocket  of  a  blacksmith,  or  a  nail-smith,  or  a 
cart  Wright,  or  a  farrier,  or  a  laborer,  or  a  ship- 
wright ;  in  a  word,  from  James,  who  gives  it 
now  without  receiving  a  grain  more  of  iron  than 
when  he  was  paying  ten  francs.  Thus,  we  can  see 
at  a  glance  that  this  very  much  alters  the  state  of 
the  case  ;  for  it  is  very  evident  that  Mr.  Prohi- 
bitionist's jprofit  is  compensated  by  James's  loss, 
and  all  that  Mr.  Prohibitionist  can  do  with  the 
money,  for  the  encouragement  of  national  labor, 
James  might  have  done  himself.  The  stone  has 
only  been  thrown  upon  one  part  of  the  lake,  be- 
cause the  law  has  prevented  it  from  being  thrown 
upon  another. 

Therefore,  that  which  is  not  seen  is  more  impor- 
tant than  that  which  is  seen,  and  at  this  point  there 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT   SEEN.  115 

remains,  as  the  residue  of  the  operation,  a  piece  ol 
injustice,  and,  sad  to  say,  a  piece  of  injustice  per- 
petrated by  the  law ! 

This  is  not  all.  I  have  said  that  there  is  always 
a  third  person  left  in  the  background.  I  must 
now  bring  him  forward,  that  he  may  reveal  to  us 
a  second  loss  of  five  francs.  Then  we  sliall  have 
the  entire  results  of  the  transaction. 

Our  former  fi-iend  James  is  the  possessor  of  fif- 
teen francs,  the  fruit  of  his  labor.  He  is  now  free. 
What  does  he  do  w^itli  his  fifteen  francs?  He 
purchases  some  article  of  fashion  for  ten  francs, 
and  with  it  he  pays  (or  the  intermediate  pays  for 
him)  for  the  hundred-weight  of  Belgian  iron. 
After  this  he  has  five  francs  left.  He  does  not 
throw  them  into  the  river,  but  (and  this  is  what 
is  not  seen)  he  gives  them  to  some  tradesman  in 
exchange  for  some  enjoyment;  to  a  bookseller, 
for  instance,  for  "a  History." 

Thus,  as  far  as  national  labor  is  concerned,  it  is 
encouraged  to  the  amount  of  fifteen  francs,  viz. : — ■ 
ten  francs  for  the  Paris  article,  five  francs  to  the 
bookselling  trade. 

As  to  James,  he  obtains  for  his  fifteen  francs 
two  gratifications,  viz. : — 

1st.  A  hundred-weight  of  iron. 

2d.  A  book. 

The  decree  is  put  in  force.    How  does  it  affect 


116  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,  AND 

the  condition  of  James  ?  How  does  it  affect  the 
national  labor  ? 

James  pays  every  centime  of  his  five  francs  to 
Mr.  Proliibitionist,  and  therefore  is  deprived  of  the 
pleasure  of  a  book,  or  of  some  otlier  thing  of  equal 
value.  He  loses  five  francs.  This  must  be  ad- 
mitted ;  it  cannot  fail  to  be  admitted,  that  when 
the  restriction  raises  tlie  price  of  things,  the  con- 
sumer loses  the  difference. 

But,  then,  it  is  said,  national  labor  is  the  gainer. 

No,  it  is  not  the  gainer ;  for  since  the  Act,  it  is 
no  more  encouraged  than  it  was  before,  to  the 
amount  of  fifteen  francs. 

The  only  thing  is  that,  since  the  Act,  the  fif- 
teen francs  of  James  go  to  the  metal  trade,  while 
befoie  it  was  put  in  force,  they  were  divided  be- 
tween the  milliner  and  the  bookseller. 

The  violence  used  by  Mr.  Prohibitionist  on  the 
frontier,  or  tliat  which  he  causes  to  be  used  by 
the  law,  may  be  judged  very  differently  in  a  moral 
point  of  view.  Some  persons  consider  that  plun- 
der is  perfectly  justifiable,  if  ovl\j  sanctioned  by 
law.  But,  for  myself,  I  cannot  imagine  anything 
more  aggravating.  However  it  may  be,  the  econ- 
omical results  are  the  same  in  both  cases. 

Look  at  the  thing  as  you  w^ill ;  but  if  you  are 
impartial,  you  will  see  that  no  good  can  come  of 
legal  or  illegal  plunder.     "We  do  not  deny  that  it 


THAT  WHICH   IS  NOT   SEEN.  117 

affords  Mr.  Prohibitionist,  or  liis  trade,  or,  if  you 
will,  national  industry,  a  profit  of  five  francs. 
But  we  afiirm  that  it  causes  two  losses,  one  to 
James,  who  pays  fifteen  francs  where  he  otherwise 
would  have  paid  ten ;  the  other  to  national  indus- 
try, which  does  not  receive  the  difference.  Take 
your  choice  of  these  two  losses,  and  offset  it  against 
the  profit  which  we  allow  in  the  first  instance. 
The  other  w^ill  prove  not  the  less  a  dead  loss. 
Here  then  is  the  moral:  To  take  by  violence  is 
not  to  produce,  but  to  destro3^  Truly,  if  taking 
by  violence  was  producing,  this  country  of  ours 
would  be  a  little  richer  than  she  is.    . 

VIII.— MACHINERY. 

*'  A  curse  on  machines  !  Every  year  their  in- 
creasing powder  devotes  millions  of  workmen  to 
pauperism,  by  depriving  them  of  work,  and  there- 
fore of  wages  and  bread.     A  curse  on  machines  ! " 

This  is  a  cry  which  in  old  times  was  very  com- 
mon ;  and  is  not  now  wholly  unknown. 

But  to  curse  machines  is  to  curse  the  spirit  of 
humanity  ! 

It  puzzles  me  to  conceive  how  any  man  can  feel 
any  satisfaction  in  such  a  doctrine. 

For,  if  true,  what  is  its  inevitable  consequence  ? 
That  there  is  no  activity,  prosperity,  wealth,  or 
happiness  possible  for  any  people,  except  for  those 


118  THAT  WHICH   IS   SEEN,   AND 

who  are  stupid  and  inert,  and  to  wliom  God  has  not 
granted  the  fatal  gift  of  knowing  how  to  think,  to 
observe,  to  combine,  to  invent,  and  to  obtain  tlie 
greatest  results  with  the  smallest  means.  On  the 
contrary,  rags,  mean  huts,  poverty,  and  inanition, 
are  the  inevitable  lot  of  every  nation  which  seeks 
and  finds  in  iron,  fire,  wind,  electricity,  magnetism, 
the  laws  of  chemistry  and  mechanics,  in  a  word, 
in  the  powers  of  nature,  an  assistance  to  its  natural 
powers.  "We  might  as  well  say  with  Kousseau — 
*' Every  man  that  thinks  is  a  depraved  animal." 

This  is  not  all.  If  this  doctrine  is  true,  since 
all  men  think  and  invent,  since  all,  from  first  to 
last,  and  at  every  moment  of  their  existence,  seek 
the  co-operation  of  the  powers  of  nature,  and  try 
to  make  the  most  of  a  little,  by  reducing  either  the 
work  of  their  hands  or  their  expenses,  so  as  to  ob- 
tain the  greatest  possible  amount  of  gratification 
with  the  smallest  possible  amount  of  labor,  it  must 
follow,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  whole  of 
mankind  is  rushing  towards  its  decline,  by  the 
same  mental  aspiration  towards  progress  which 
torments  each  of  its  members. 

Hence,  it  ought  to  be  made  known,  by  statis- 
tics, that  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States, 
abandoning  that  land  of  machines,  seek  for  work 
in  Turkey,  where  they  are  little  used ;  and,  by 
history,  that  barbarism  helps  the  progress  of  civili- 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  119 

zation,  and  that  civilization  flourishes  in  times  of 
ignorance  and  barbarism. 

There  is  evidently  in  this  mass  of  contradic- 
tions something  which  revolts  us,  and  which  leads 
us  to  suspect  that  the  problem  contains  within  it 
an  element  of  solution  which  has  not  been  suffi- 
ciently disengaged. 

Here  is  the  whole  mystery  :  behind  that  which 
is  seen  lies  something  which  is  not  seen.  I  wnll 
endeavor  to  bring  it  to  light.  The  demonstration 
I  shall  give  will  only  be  a  repetition  of  the  pre- 
ceding one,  for  the  problems  are  one  and  the  same. 

Men  have  a  natural  propensity  to  make  the 
best  bargain  they  can,  when  not  prevented  by  an 
opposing  force ;  that  is,  they  like  to  obtain  as 
much  as  they  possibly  can  for  their  labor,  whether 
the  advantage  is  obtained  from  o,  foreign jproducer 
or  a  skilful  mechanical  jprodxicer. 

The  theoretical  objection  which  is  made  to  the 
exercise  of  this  propensitj^  is  the  same  in  both  in- 
stances. In  each  instance  it  is  claimed  that  the 
exercise  of  this  propensit}^  restricts  (at  least  ap- 
parently) the  opportunities  for  labor.  But  the 
way  to  make  labor  active  and  in  demand,  is  to 
freely  allow  every  one  to  obtain  as  much  as  pos- 
sible for  the  results  of  their  labor ;  to  use  such 
results  as  they  may  see  fit ;  to  make  the  best  bar- 
gains possible  ;  and  the  most  practical  way  of  pre- 


120  THAT   WHICH   IS   SEEN,   AND 

venting  men  from  following  their  natural  pro- 
pensities in  these  respects,  is  to  invoke  the  aid  of 
force  and  enact  restrictions. 

Thus,  tlie  legislator  at  one  time  forbids  foreign 
competition,  and  at  another  time  the  legislators 
or  combinations  of  individuals  forbid  mechanical 
competition.*  For  what  other  means  can  exist  for 
arresting  a  propensity  which  is  natnral  to  all  men, 
but  that  of  depriving  them  of  their  liberty? 


*  When  machines  for  the  spinning  and  weaving  of  cotton 
were  first  introduced  into  England,  the  inventors  were  afraid 
to  work  them  openly,  and  their  lives  were  threatened.  Sub- 
sequently, when  the  value  of  the  inventions  became  recog- 
nized, Parliament,  in  order  to  prevent  foreign  competition, 
prohibited,  under  severe  penalties  for  the  violation  of  the 
law,  the  export  of  any  textile  machinery,  and  also  the  emi- 
gration of  artificers. 

As  recently  as  1830  agricultural  laborers  banded  together 
in  England,  systematically  destroyed  all  the  machinery  of 
many  farms,  down  even  to  the  common  drills.  A  news- 
paper report  of  the  day,  says  :— "  The  men  conducted  them- 
selves with  civility  ;  and  such  was  their  consideration,  that 
they  moved  the  machines  out  of  the  farm-yards  to  prevent 
injury  arising  to  the  cattle  from  the  nails  and  splinters  that 
flew  about  while  the  machinery  was  being  destroyed.  They 
could  not  make  up  their  minds  as  to  the  propriety  of  destroy- 
ing a  horse  churn,  and  therefore  that  machine  was  passed 
over." 

Again,  as  recently  as  1873,  the  rules  of  the  associated 
masons  and  bricklayers  of  New  York,  would  not  allow  work 
on  the  construction  of  buildings  to  go  on,  the  contractors  of 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  121 

Nowadays  the  legislator  restricts  his  opposi- 
tion to  only  one  of  these  combinations — the  for- 
eign. In  old  times  he  was  more  consistent,  for  he 
opposed  both. 

We  need  not  be  surprised  at  this.  On  a  wrong 
road,  inconsistency  is  inevitable ;  if  it  were  not 
so,  mankind  would  be  sacrificed.  A  false  princi- 
ple never  has  been,  and  never  will  be,  carried  out 
to  the  end. 

Now  for  our  demonstration,  which  shall  not  be 
a  long  one. 

James  had  two  dollars,  which  he  had  gained  by 
two  workmen ;  but  it  occurs  to  him  that  an  ar- 
rangement of  ropes  and  weights  might  be  made 
which  would  diminish  the  labor  by  half.  There- 
fore he  obtains  the  same  advantage,  saves  a  dollar 
and  discharges  a  workman. 

He  discharges  a  workman  :  this,  is  that  which 
is  seen. 

And  seeing  this  only,  it  is  said,  "  See  how 
misery  attends  civilization ;  this  is  the  way  that 
liberty  is  fatal  to  equality.  The  human  mind  has 
made  a  conquest,  and  immediately  a  workman  is 
cast  into  the  gulf  of  pauperism.  James  may  pos- 
sibly employ  the  two  workmen,  but  then  he  will 

which  used  machinery  for  elevating  bricks  and  mortar,  in 

place  of  having  the  same  carried  up  in  hods,  on  the  shoulders 

of  laborers. 

6 


122  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,  AND 

give  them  only  half  tlieir  wages,  for  tliey  will  com- 
pete with  each  otlier,  and  offer  themselves  at  the 
lowest  price.  Thus  the  rich  are  always  growing 
richer,  and  the  poor,  poorer.  Society  wants  re- 
modelling." A  very  fine  conclusion,  and  worthy 
of  the  preamble. 

Happily,  preamble  and  conclusion  are  both 
false,  because  behind  the  half  of  the  phenomenon 
which  is  seen  lies  the  other  half,  which  is  not 
seen. 

The  dollar  saved  by  James  is  not  seen,  no  more 
are  the  necessary  effects  of  this  saving. 

Since,  in  consequence  of  his  invention,  James 
spends  only  one  dollar  on*liand  labor  in  affecting 
a  result  which  formerly  required  the  expenditure 
of  two  dollars,  another  dollar  remains  to  him. 

If,  then,  there  is  in  the  world  a  workman  with 
unemployed  arms,  there  is  also  in  the  world  a 
capitalist  with  an  unemployed  dollar.  These  two 
elements  meet  and  combine,  and  it  is  as  clear  as 
daylight  that  between  the  supply  and  demand  of 
labor,  and  between  the  supply  and  demand  of 
wages,  the  relation  is  in  no  way  changed. 

The  invention  and  the  workman  paid  with  the 
first  dollar  now  perform  the  work  which  was 
formerly  accomj^lished  by  two  workmen.  The 
second  workman,  paid  w^ith  the  second  dollar, 
realizes  a  new  kind  of  work. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  123 

AVhat  is  the  change,  then,  which  has  taken 
place  ?  An  additional  national  advantage  has 
been  gained ;  in  other  words,  the  invention  is  a 
gratuitous  triumph — a  gratuitous  profit  for  man- 
kind. 

From  the  form  which  I  have  given  to  my 
demonstration,  the  following  inference  might  be 
drawn : — ''  It  is  the  capitalist  who  reaps  all  the 
advantage  from  machinery.  The  working  class, 
if  it  only  suffers  temporarily,  never  profits  by  it, 
since,  by  your  own  showing,  it  displaces  a  portion 
of  the  national  labor,  without  diminishing  it,  it  is 
true,  but  also  without  increasing  it." 

I  do  not  pretend,  in  this  slight  treatise,  to 
answer  every  objection  ;  the  only  end  I  have  in 
view,  is  to  combat  a  vulgar,  widely  spread,  and 
dangerous  prejudice.  I  want  to  prove  that  a  new 
machine  only  causes  the  discharge  of  a  certain 
number  of  hands,  when  the  remuneration  which 
pays  them  is  abstracted  by  force.  These  hands 
and  this  remuneration  would  combine  to  produce 
what  it  was  impossible  to  produce  before  the  in- 
vention ;  whence  it  follows  that  the  final  result  is 
an  increase  of  advantages  fo7'  equal  labor. 

"Who  is  the  gainer  by  these  additional  advan- 
tages ? 

First,  it  is  true,  the  capitalist,  the  inventor; 
the  first  who  succeeds  in  using  the  machine  ;  and 


124  THAT   WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

this  is  the  reward  of  his  genius  and  skill.  In  this 
case,  as  we  have  just  seen,  he  effects  a  saving  of 
the  expense  of  production,  which,  in  whatever 
way  it  may  be  spent  (and  it  always  is  spent),  em- 
ploys exactly  as  many  hands  as  the  machine 
caused -to  be  dismissed. 

But  soon  competition  obliges  him  to  lower  his 
prices  in  proportion  to  the  saving  itself ;  and  then 
it  is  no  longer  the  inventor  who  reaps  the  benefit 
of  the  invention — it  is  the  purchaser  of  what  is 
produced,  the  consumer,  the  public,  including  the 
workman  ;  in  a  word,  mankind. 

And  that  which  is  not  seen  is,  that  the  saving 
thus  procured  for  all  consumers  creates  a  fund 
whence  wages  may  be  supplied,  and  which  re- 
places that  which  the  maclune  has  exhausted. 

Tlius,  to  recur  to  the  forementioned  example, 
James  obtains  a  profit  by  spending  two  dollars  in 
wages.  Thanks  to  his  invention,  the  hand  labor 
costs  him  only  one  dollar.  So  long  as  he  sells  the 
thing  produced  at  the  same  price,  he  employs  one 
workman  less  in  producing  this  particular  tiling, 
and  that  is  what  is  seen ;  but  there  is  an  addi- 
tional workman  employed  by  the  dollar  which 
James  has  saved.     This  is  that  which  is  not  seen. 

When,  by  the  natural  progress  of  things,  James 
is  obliged  to  lower  the  price  of  the  thing  pro- 
duced by  one  dollar,  then  he  no  longer  realizes  a 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  125 

saving;  tlien  lie  Las  no  longer  a  dollar  to  dispose 
of  to  procure  for  the  national  labor  a  new  produc- 
tion. But  then  another  gainer  takes  his  place, 
and  this  gainer  is  mankind.  Whoever  bnys  the 
thing  he  has  produced,  pays  a  dollar  less,  and 
necessarily  adds  this  saving  to  the  fund  of  wages ; 
and  this,  again,  is  what  is  not  seen. 

Another  solution,  founded  upon  facts,  has  been 
given  of  this  problem  of  machinery. 

It  was  said,  machinery  reduces^he  expense  of 
production  and  lowers  the  price  of  the  thing  pro- 
duced. The  reduction  of  the  profit  causes  an  in- 
crease of  consumption,  which  necessitates  an  in- 
crease of  production ;  and,  finally,  the  introduc- 
tion of  as  many  workmen,  or  more,  after  the  in- 
vention as  were  necessary  before  it.  As  a  proof 
of  this,  printing,  weaving,  etc.,  are  instanced. 

This  demonstration  is  not  a  scientific  one.  It 
would  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  if  the  consump- 
tion of  tlie  particular  production  of  which  we  are 
speaking  remains  stationary,  or  nearly  so,  ma- 
chinery must  injure  labor.     This  is  not  the  case. 

Suppose  that  in  a  certain  country  all  the  people 
wore  hats.  If  by  machinery,  the  price  could  be 
reduced  half,  it  would  not  necessarily  follow  that 
the  consumption  would  be  doubled. 

Would  you  say  that  in  this  case  a  portion  of 
the  national  labor  had  been  paralyzed  ?     Yes,  ao» 


12G  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

cording  to  tlie  vulgar  demonstration  ;  but,  accord- 
ing to  mine,  No ;  for  even  if  not  a  single  hat 
more  should  be  bought  in  the  country,  the  entire 
fund  of  wages  would  not  be  the  less  secure.  That 
which  failed  to  q:o  to  the  hat-makino^  trade  would 
be  found  to  have  gone  to  the  economy  realized 
by  all  the  consumers,  and  would  thence  serve  to 
pay  for  all  the  labor  which  the  machine  had  ren- 
dered useless,  and  to  excite  a  new  development  of 
all  the  trades.  And  thus  it  is  that  things  go  on. 
I  have  known  newspapers  to  cost  ten  dollars  per 
annum  ;  now  we  pay  five  :  here  is  a  saving  of  five 
dollars  to  the  subscribers.  It  is  not  certain,  or  at 
least  necessary,  that  the  five  dollars  should  take 
the  direction  of  the  journalist  trade;  but  it  is 
certain,  and  necessary  too,  that  if  they  do  not  take 
this  direction  they  will  take  another.  One  makes 
use  of  them  for  buying  in  more  newspapers; 
another,  to  get  better  living ;  another  better 
clothes  ;  another,  belter  furniture.  It  is  thus  that 
the  trades  are  bound  together.  They  form  a  vast 
whole,  whose  different  parts  communicate  in  secret 
canals  :  what  is  saved  by  one  profits  all.  It  is  very 
important  for  us  to  understand  that  savings  never 
take  place  at  the  exjperise  of  labor  and  wages. "^ 

*  Charles  Knight,  in  one  of  his  economic  publications,  also 
discusses  this  same  question,  from  the  special  standpoint  of 
the  English  laborers  who  in  1830  broke  up  and  destroyed 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  127 


IX.— CREDIT. 

In  all  times,  but  more  especially  of  late  years, 
attempts  have  been  made  to  extend  wealth  by  the 
extension  of  credit. 

IS'ow  a  few  are  always  ready  to  proclaim  that 

agricultural  machinery,  with  the  expectation  that  by  so  doing 
they  would  increase  the  opportunity  and  demand  for  labor. 

It  can  be  fully  demonstrated,  he  says,"  that  if  the  English 
laborers  had  been  successful  in  their  career — had  broken  all 
the  more  ingenious  implements  which  have  aided  in  renderinof 
British  agriculture  the  most  perfect  in  the  world — they  would 
not  have  advanced  one  step  in  obtaining  more  employment 
or  being  better  paid. 

"  Thus,  Ave  will  suppose  that  the  farmer  has  yielded  to  this 
violence  ;  that  the  violence  has  had  the  effect  which  it  was 
meant  to  have  upon  him  ;  and  that  he  takes  on  all  the  hands 
which  were  out  of  employ  to  thrash  and  winnow,  to  cut 
chaff,  to  plant  with  the  hands  instead  of  with  a  drill,  to  do 
all  the  work  in  fact  by  the  dearest  mode  instead  of  the  cheap- 
est. But  he  employs  just  as  many  as  are  absolutely  necessary, 
and  no  more,  for  getting  his  corn  ready  for  market,  and  for 
preparing  in  a  slovenly  way  for  the  seed-time.  In  a  month  or 
two  the  victorious  destroyers  discover  that  not  a  single  hand 
the  more  of  them  is  really  employed.  Why  not  ?  There  are 
no  drainings  going  forward,  the  fences  and  ditches  are  neg- 
lected, the  dung  heap  is  not  turned  over,  the  marl  is  not  fetched 
from  the  pit  ;  in  fact  all  these  labors  are  neglected  which 
belong  to  a  state  of  agricultural  industry  which  is  brought  to 
perfection.  The  farmer  has  no  funds  to  employ  in  such 
lobars.  He  is  paying  a  great  deal  more  than  he  paid  before 
for  the  same,  or  a  less  amount  of  work,  because  his  laborers 


128  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,   AND 

in  the  extension  and  increasing  credit  is  to  be 
found  the  solution  for  the  whole  social  problem. 

The  only  basis,  alas !  of  this  solution  is  an  op- 
tical delusion — if,  indeed,  an  optical  delusion  can 
be  called  a  basis  at  all. 

The  first  thing  done  is  to  confuse  money  with 

choose  to  do  certain  labors  with  rude  tools  instead  of  perfect 
ones. 

"We  will  imagine  that  this  state  of  things  continues  till 
the  next  spring.  All  this  while  the  price  of  grain  has  been 
rising  ;  many  farmers  have  ceased  to  employ  capital  at  all 
upon  their  land.  The  inventions  which  enabled  them  to 
make  a  living  out  of  tbeir  business  being  destroyed,  they 
have  abandoned  the  business  altogether.  A  day's  work  will 
no  longer  purchase  as  much  bread  as  before.  The  horse,  it 
might  be  found  out,  was  as  great  an  enemy  as  the  drill- 
plow  ;  for  as  the  horse  will  do  the  field-work  of  six  men, 
there  must  be  six  men  employed,  without  doubt,  instead  of 
one  horse.  But  how  would  the  fact  turn  out  ?  If  the  farmer 
still  went  on,  in  spite  of  all  these  losses  and  crosses,  he 
might  employ  men  in  the  place  of  horses,  but  not  a  single 
man  more  than  the  number  that  would  work  at  the  price  of 
the  keep  of  one  horse.  To  do  the  work  of  each  horse  turned 
adrift,  he  would  require  six  men ;  but  he  would  only  have 
about  a  shilling  a  day  to  divide  between  these  six — the 
amount  which  the  horse  consumed. 

"As  the  year  advanced,  and  the  harvest  approached,  it 
would  be  discovered  that  not  one-tenth  of  the  land  was  sown; 
for  although  the  plows  were  gone,  because  the  horses  were 
turned  off,  and  there  was  plenty  of  labor  for  those  who 
choose  to  labor  for  its  own  sake,  or  at  the  price  of  horse 
labor,  this  amazing  employment   for  human  hands    some- 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT   SEEN.  129 

produce,  tlien  paper  money  (promises  to  pay 
money)  with  actual ;  and  from  these  two  confusions 
it  is  pretended  that  a  reality  can  be  drawn. 

It  is  absolutely  necessary  in  this  question  to 
forget  coin,  bills,  and  the  other  instruments  by 
means  of  which  productions  pass  from  hand  to 
hand.  Our  business  is  with  the  productions  them- 
selves, which  are  the  real  objects  of  the  loan ;  for 
when  a  farmer  borrows  twenty  dollars  to  buy  a 
plow,  it  is  not,  in  reality,  the  twenty  dollars  which 
are  lent  to  him,  but  the  plow ;  and  when  a  mer- 
chant borrows  $20,000  to  purchase  a  house,  it  is 
not  the  $20,000  which  he  owes,  but  the  house. 


how  would  not  quite  answer  the  purpose.  It  has  been  cal- 
culated that  the  power  of  horses,  oxen,  etc.,  employed  in 
husbandry  in  Great  Britain  is  ten  times  the  amount  of 
human  power.  If  human  power  insisted  upon  doing  all  the 
work  with  the  worst  tools,  the  certainty  is  that  not  even  one- 
tenth  of  the  land  could  be  cultivated.  Where  then  would 
all  this  madness  end  ?  In  the  starvation  of  the  laborers 
themselves.  Even  if  they  were  allowed  to  eat  up  all  they  hud 
produced  by  such  imperfect  means,  they  would  be  just  in 
the  condition  of  other  barbarous  people,  that  were  ignorant 
of  the  inventions  that  constitute  the  power  of  civilization. 
They  would  eat  up  the  little  corn  which  they  raised  them- 
selves, and  find  they  had  nothing  to  give  in  exchange  for 
clothes,  and  coal,  and  candles,  and  soap,  and  sugar,  and  tea, 
and  all  the  many  comforts  which  those  who  are  now  the 
worst  off  are  not  wholly  deprived  of." — Knowledge  is 
Power. 


130  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,   AND 

Money  only  appears  for  the  sake  of  facilitating  tlie 
arrangements  between  the  parties. 

Peter  may  not  be  disposed  to  lend  his  plow, 
but  James  may  be  willing  to  lend  his  money. 
"What  does  "William  do  in  this  case  ?  He  borrows 
money  of  James,  and  with  this  money  he  buys  the 
plow  of  Peter. 

But,  in  point  of  fact,  no  one  borrows  money  for 
the  sake  of  the  money  itself;  money  is  only  the 
medium  by  which  to  obtain  possession  of  produc- 
tions. Now,  it  is  impossible  in  any  country  to 
transmit  from  one  person  to  another  more  produc- 
tions than  that  country  contains. 

Wliatevermay  be  the  amount  of  real  money  and 
of  paper  money,  which  is  in  circulation,  the  whole 
of  the  borrowers  cannot  receive  more  plows, 
houses,  tools,  and  supplies  of  raw  material,  than 
the  lenders  altogether  can  furnish ;  for  we  must 
take  care  not  to  forget  that  every  borrower  sup- 
poses a  lender,  and  that  what  is  once  borrowed 
implies  a  loan. 

This  granted,  what  advantage  is  there  in  insti- 
tutions of  credit  ?  It  is  that  they  facilitate,  between 
borrowers  and  lenders,  the  means  of  finding  and 
. treating  with  each  other;  but  it  is  not  in  their 
power  to  cause  an  instantaneous  increase  of  the 
things  to  be  borrowed  and  lent.  And  yet  they 
ought  to  be  able  to  do  so,  if  the  aim  of  the  reform- 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  131 

ers  is  to  be  attained,  since  tliej  aspire  to  nothing 
less  than  to  place  plows,  houses,  tools j_ and  pro- 
visions in  the  hands  of  all  those  who  desire  them. 

And  how  do  they  intend  to  effect  this? 

By  making  the  State  security  for  the  loan. 

Let  us  try  and  fathom  the  subject,  for  it  contains 
something  which  is  seen,  and  also  something  which 
is  not  seen.     We  must  endeavor  to  look  at  both. 

We  will  suppose  that  there  is  but  one  plow  in 
the  world,  and  tliat  two  farmers  apply  for  it. 

Peter  is  the  possessor  of  the  only  plow  which 
is  to  be  had  in  the  country ;  John  and  James  wish 
to  borrow  it.  John,  by  his  honesty,  his  property, 
and  good  reputation,  offers  security.  He  inspires 
confidence  /  he  has  credit.  James  inspires  little  or 
no  confidence.  It  naturally  happens  that  Peter 
lends  his  plow  to  John. 

But  now,  according  to  the  Socialist  plan,  the 
State  interferes,  and  says  to  Peter :  ^'  Lend  your 
plow  to  James,  I  will  be  security  for  its  return, 
and  this  security  will  be  better  than  that  of  John, 
for  he  has  no  one  to  be  responsible  for  him  but 
himself;  and  I,  although  it  is  true  that  I  have 
nothing,  dispose  of  the  fortune  of  the  tax-payers, 
and  it  is  with  their  money  that,  in  case  of  need,  I 
shall  pay  you  the  principal  and  interest."  Conse- 
quently, Peter  lends  his  plow  to  James :  this  is 
what  is  seen.  • 


132  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

And  the  Socialists  nib  their  hands,  and  say, 
*'  See  how  well  our  plan  has  answered.  Thanks 
to  the  intervention  of  the  State,  poor  James  has  a 
plow.  He  will  no  longer  be  obliged  to  dig  the 
ground ;  he  is  on  the  road  to  make  a  fortune.  It 
is  a  good  thing  for  him,  and  an  advantage  to  the 
nation  as  a  whole." 

Indeed,  it  is  no  sncli  a  thing ;  it  is  no  advantage 
to  the  nation,  for  there  is  something  behind  which 
is  not  seen. 

It  is  not  seen^  that  the  plongh  is  in  the  hands  of 
James,  only  because  it  is  not  in  those  of  John. 

It  is  not  seen^  that  if  James  farms  instead  of 
digging,  John  will  be  reduced  to  the  necessity  of 
digging  instead  of  farming. 

That,  consequently,  what  was  considered  an  in- 
crease of  loan,  is  nothing  but  a  displacement  of 
loan.  Besides,  it  is  not  seen  that  this  displacement 
implies  two  acts  of  deep  injustice. 

It  is  an  injustice  to  John,  who  after  having  de- 
served and  obtained  credit  by  his  honesty  and 
activity,  sees  himself  robbed  of  it. 

It  is  an  injustice  to  the  tax-payers,  who  are  made 
to  pay  a  debt  which  is  no  concern  of  theirs. 

"Will  any  one  say,  that  Government  offers  the 
same  facilities  to  John  as  it  does  to  James?  But 
as  there  is  only  one  plow  to  be  had,  two  cannot 
be  lent.    The   argument  always  maintains  that, 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  133 

thanks  to  the  intervention  of  the  State,  more  will 
be  borrowed  than  there  are  things  to  be  lent;  for 
the  plow  represents  here  the  bulk  of  available 
capitals. 

It  is  true  I  have  reduced  the  operation  to  the 
most  simple  expression  of  it ;  but  if  you  submit 
the  most  complicated  Government  institutions  of 
credit  to  the  same  test,  you  will  be  convinced  that 
they  can  have  but  one  result;  viz.,  to  displace 
credit,  not  to  augment  it.  In  one  country,  and  in 
a  given  time,  there  is  only  a  certain  amount  of 
capital  available,  and  all  are  employed.  In  guaran- 
teeing payment  on  the  part  of  the  borrowers,  the 
State  may,  indeed,  increase  the  number  of  borrow- 
ers, and  tlms  raise  the  rate  of  interest  (always  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  tax-payer),  but  it  has  no  power 
to  increase  the  number  of  lenders,  and  the  aggre- 
gate amount  of  the  loans. 

There  is  one  conclusion,  however,  which  I  would 
not  for  the  world  be  suspected  of  drawing.  I  say, 
that  the  law  ought  not  to  favor,  artificially,  the 
power  of  borrowing,  but  I  do  not  say  that  it  ought 
not  to  artificially  interpose  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
borrowing.  If,  in  our  system  of  borrowing  on 
mortgages,  or  in  any  other  way,  there  be  obstacles 
to  the  difi'usion  of  the  application  of  credit,  let 
them  be  got  rid  of ;  nothing  can  be  better  or  more 
just  than  this.     But  this  is  all  which  is  consistent 


134  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

witli  liberty,  and  it  is  all  that  any  who  are  worthy 
of  the  name  of  reformers  will  ask. 

X.— ALGERIA.* 

Here  are  four  orators  disputing  for  the  platform. 
First,  all  the  four  speak  at  once ;  then  they  speak 
one  after  the  other.  Wliat  have  they  said?  Some 
very  fine  things,  certainly,  about  the  power  and 
the  grandeur  of  France ;  about  the  necessity  of 
sowing,  if  we  would  reap;  about  the  brilliant  fu- 
ture of  our  gigantic  colony ;  about  the  advantage 
of  diverting  to  a  distance  the  surplus  of  our  popu- 
lation, &c.,  &c.  Magnificent  pieces  of  eloquence, 
and  always  adorned  with  this  conclusion : — "  Yote 
fifty  millions,  more  or  less,  for  making  ports  and 
roads  in  Algeria ;  for  sending  emigrants  thither ; 
for  building  houses  and  breaking  up  land.  By  so 
doing,  you  will  relieve  the  French  workman,  en- 
courage African  labor,  and  give  a  stimulus  to  the 


*  In  this  chapter  M.  Bastiat  discusses  a  form  of  public  ex- 
penditure in  France  growing  out  of  the  colonial  policy,  adopt- 
ed by  that  country,  wliich  has  no  exact  counterpart  in  the 
fiscal  disbursements  of  the  United  States.  The  principles 
involved  in  the  expenditures  of  France  in  behalf  of  her  col- 
ony in  Algeria,  are,  however,  the  same  which  underlie  the 
expenditures  in  every  country  for  a  great  variety  of  what  are 
caWed  public  purposes  ;  and  therefore,  although  the  illustra- 
tions may  be  foreign  and  local,  the  argument  admits  of  uni- 
versal application. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  135 

commerce  of  Marseilles.  It  would  be  profitable 
every  way." 

Yes,  it  is  all  very  true,  if  you  take  no  account 
of  the  fifty  millions  until  the  moment  when  the 
State  begins  to  spend  them  ;  if  you  only  see  where 
they  go,  and  not  whence  they  come ;  if  you  look 
only  at  the  good  they  are  to  do  when  they  come 
out  of  the  tax-gatherer's  bag,  and  not  at  the  harm 
which  has  been  done,  and  the  good  which  has  been 
prevented,  by  putting  them  into  it.  Yes,  at  this 
limited  point  of  view  all  is  profit.  The  house 
which  is  built  in  Barbary  is  that  which  is  seen  / 
the  harbor  made  in  Barbary  is  that  which  is  seen  j 
the  work  caused  in  Barbary  is  what  is  seen  /  a 
few  less  hands  in  France  is  what  is  seen  /  a  great 
stir  with  goods  at  Marseilles  is  still  that  which  is 
seen. 

But,  besides  all  this,  there  is  something  which 
is  not  seen.  The  fifty  millions  expended  by  the 
State  cannot  be  spent,  as  they  otherwise  would 
have  been,  by  the  tax-payers.  It  is  necessary  to 
deduct,  from  all  the  good  attributed  to  the  public 
expenditure  which  has  been  effected,  all  the  harm 
caused  by  the  prevention  of  private  expense,  un- 
less we  say  that  James  would  have  done  nothing 
with  the  francs  that  he  had  gained,  and  of  which 
the  tax  had  deprived  him  ;  an  absurd  assertion,  for 
if  he  took  the  trouble  to  earn  it,  it  was  because  he 


136  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,  AND 

expected  the  satisfaction  of  using  it.  He  would 
liave  repaired  the  palings  in  his  garden,  which  he 
cannot  now  do,  and  this  is  that  which  is  not  seen. 
He  would  have  manured  his  field,  which  now  he 
cannot  do,  and  this  is  what  is  not  seen.  He  would 
have  added  another  story  to  his  cottage,  which  he 
cannot  do  now,  and  this  is  what  is  not  seen.  He 
might  have  increased  the  number  of  his  tools, 
which  he  cannot  do  now,  and  this  is  what  is  not 
seen.  He  w^ould  have  been  better  fed,  better 
clothed,  have  given  a  better  education  to  his  chil- 
dren, and  increased  his  daughter's  marriage  por- 
tion ;  this  is  what  is  not  seen.  He  would  have 
become  a  member  of  the  Mutual  Assistance  Society, 
but  now  he  cannot ;  this  is  what  is  not  seen.  On 
one  hand,  are  the  enjoyments  of  which  he  has 
been  deprived,  and  the  means  of  action  which 
have  been  destroyed  in  his  hands;  on  the  other, 
are  the  labor  of  the  drainer,  the  carpenter,  the 
smith,  the  tailor,  the  village  schoolmaster,  which 
he  would  have  encouraged,  and  which  are  now  pre* 
vented — all  this  is  what  is  not  seen. 

Much  is  hoped  from  the  future  prosperity  of 
Algeria;  be  it  so.  But  the  drain  to  which  France 
is  being  subjected  ought  not  to  be  kept  entirely  out 
of  sight.  The  commerce  of  Marseilles  is  pointed 
out  to  me;  but  if  this  is  to  be  brought  about  by 
means  of  taxation,  I  shall  always  show  that  an 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  187 

equal  commerce  is  destroyed  thereby  in  other  parts 
of  the  country.  It  is  said,  "  There  is  an  emigrant 
transported  into  Earbary ;  this  is  a  relief  to  the 
j)opulation  which  remains  in  the  country."  I 
answer,  "  How  can  that  be,  if,  in  transporting  this 
emigrant  to  Algiers,  you  also  transport  two  or 
three  times  the  capital  which  would  have  served 
to  maintain  him  in  France  ?  "  * 

The  only  object  I  have  in  view  is  to  make  it 
evident  to  the  reader,  that  in  every  public  expense, 
behind  the  apparent  benefit,  there  is  an  evil  which 
it  is  not  so  easy  to  discern.  As  far  as  in  me  lies, 
I  would  make  him  form  a  habit  of  seeing  both, 
and  taking  account  of  both. 

"When  a  public  expense  is  proposed,  it  ought  to 
be  examined  in  itself,  separately  from  the  pretend- 
ed encouragement  of  labor  wliich  results  from  it, 
for  this  encouragement  is  a  delusion.  Whatever 
is  done  in  this  way  at  the  public  expense,  private 
expense  would  liave  done  all  the  same ;  therefore, 
the  interest  of  labor  is  always  out  of  the  question. 

It  is  not  the  object  of  this  treatise  to  criticise 

*  The  Minister  of  War  has  lately  asserted  that  every  indi- 
vidual transported  to  Algeria  has  cost  the  State  8,000  francs. 
Now  it  is  certain  that  these  poor  creatures  could  have  lived 
very  well  in  France  on  a  capital  of  4,000  francs.  I  ask,  how 
the  French  population  is  relieved,  when  it  is  deprived  of  a 
man,  and  of  the  means  of  subsistence  of  two  men  1 


138  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AKD 

the  intrinsic  merit  of  tlie  public  expenditure  as 
applied  to  Algeria,  but  I  cannot  withhold  a  gen- 
eral observation.  It  is,  that  the  presumption  is 
always  unfavorable  to  expenditures  which  are  paid 
by  money  raised  by  taxation.  Why?  For  this 
reason : — First,  justice  always  suffers  from  it  in 
some  degree.  Since  James  had  labored  to  gain 
liis  franc,  in  the  hope  of  receiving  a  gratification 
from  it,  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  national  treas- 
ury should  interpose,  and  take  from  James  this 
gratification,  to  bestow  it  upon  another.  Certainly, 
it  behoves  the  treasury,  or  those  who  regulate  it, 
to  give  good  reasons  for  this.  It  has  been  shown 
that  the  State  gives  a  very  provoking  one,  when 
it  says,  "  With  this  franc  I  shall  employ  work- 
men ; "  for  James  (as  soon  as  he  sees  it)  will  be 
sure  to  answer,  "  It  is  all  very  fine,  but  with  this 
franc  I  might  employ  them  myself." 

Apart  from  this  reason,  others  present  them- 
selves without  disguise,  by  which  the  debate  be- 
tween the  treasury  and  poor  James  becomes  much 
simplified.  If  the  State  says  to  him,  *'  I  take  your 
franc  to  pay  the  police  officer  who  saves  you  the 
trouble  of  providing  for  your  own  personal  safety ; 
for  paving  the  street  which  you  are  passing  through 
every  day  ;  for  paying  the  magistrate  who  causes 
your  property  and  your  liberty  to  be  respected ; 
to  maintain  the  soldier  who  maintains  our  fron- 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  139 

tiers," — James,  unless  I  am  much  mistaken,  will 
pay  for  all  this  without  hesitation.  But  if  the 
State  were  to  say  to  him,  "I  take  this  franc  that 
I  may  give  you  a  little  prize  in  case  you  cultivate 
your  field  well;  or  that  I  may  teach  your  son 
something  that  you  have  no  wish  that  he  should 
learn ;  or  that  the  Minister  may  add  another  to 
his  score  of  dishes  at  dinner;  I  take  it  to  build  a 
cottage  in  Algeria,  in  which  case  I  must  take 
another  franc  every  year  to  keep  an  emigrant  in 
it,  and  another  hundred  to  maintain  a  soldier  to 
guard  this  emigrant,  and  another  franc  to  main- 
tain^a  general  to  guard  this  soldier,"  <fec.,  (fee, — I 
think  I  hear  poor  James  exclaim,  ^'  This  system 
cf  law  is  very  much  like  a  system  of  cheat ! "  The 
State  foresees  the  objection,  and  what  does  it  do? 
It  jumbles  all  things  together,  and  brings  forward 
just  that  provoking  reason  which  ought  to  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  question.  It 
talks  of  the  effect  of  this  expenditure  upon  labor; 
it  points  to  the  cook  and  purveyor  of  the  Minister; 
it  shows  an  emigrant,  a  soldier,  and  a  general,  liv- 
ing upon  the  franc  ;  it  shows,  in  tact,  ivhat  is  seen, 
and  if  James  has  not  learned  to  take  into  the  ac- 
count lohat  is  not  seen^  James  will  be  duped.  And 
this  is  why  I  want  to  do  all  I  can  to  impress  it 
upon  his  mind,  by  repeatingit  over  and  over  again. 
As  the  public  expenditures  displace  labor  with 


140  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

out  increasing  it,  a  second  serious  presumption 
presents  itself  against  them.  To  displace  labor  is 
to  displace  laborers,  and  to  disturb  the  natural 
laws  which  regulate  the  distribution  of  the  popu- 
lation over  the  country.  If  50,000,000  francs  are 
allowed  to  remain  in  the  possession  of  the  tax-pay- 
ers, since  the  tax-payers  are  everywhere,  they  en- 
courage labor  in  the  40,000  parishes  in  France. 
They  act  like  a  natural  tie,  which  keeps  every  one 
upon  his  native  soil ;  they  distribute  themselves 
amongst  all  imaginable  laborers  and  trades.  If  the 
State,  by  drawing  off  these  50,000,000  francs  from 
the  citizens,  accumulates  them,  and  expends  them 
on  some  given  point,  it  attracts  to  this  point  a  pro- 
portional quantity  of  displaced  labor,  a  correspond- 
ing number  of  laborers,  belonging  to  other  parts ; 
a  fluctuating  population,  which  is  out  of  its  place, 
and  possibly  dangerous  when  the  fund  is  exhaust- 
ed. Now  here  is  the  consequence  (and  this  con- 
firms all  I  have  said) :  this  feverish  activity  is,  as 
it  were,  forced  into  a  narrow  space;  it  attracts 
the  attention  of  all ;  it  is  what  is  seen.  The  people 
applaud ;  they  are  astonished  at  the  beauty  and 
facility  of  the  plan,  and  expect  to  have  it  contin- 
ued and  extended.  That  which  they  do  not  see  is, 
that  an  equal  quantity  of  labor,  which  would  pro- 
bably be  more  valuable,  has  been  paralyzed  over 
the  rest  of  France. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  141 


XI.— FRUGALITY  AND  LUXURY. 

It  is  not  •  only  in  the  public  expenditure  that 
what  is  seen  eclipses  what  is  not  seen.  Setting 
aside  what  relates  to  political  economy,  this  phe- 
nomenon leads  to  false  reasoning.  It  causes  na- 
tions to  consider  their  moral  and  their  material 
interests  as  contradictory  to  each  other.  What 
can  be  more  discouraging  or  more  dismal  ? 

For  instance,  there  is  not  a  father  of  a  family 
who  does  not  think  it  his  duty  to  teach  his  chil- 
dren order,  system,  the  habits  of  carefulness,  of 
economy,  and  of  moderation  in  spending  money. 

There  is  no  religion  which  does  not  thunder 
against  pomp  and  luxury.  This  is  as  it  should  be ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  howfrequently  do  w^e  hear 
the  following  remarks : — 

''  To  hoard  is  to  drain  the  veins  of  the  people.'' 

"  The  luxury  of  the  great  is  the  opportunity  of 
the  little." 

"  Prodigals  ruin  themselves,  but  they  enrich  the 
State." 

"It  is  the  superfluity  of  the  rich  which  makes 
bread  for  the  poor." 

Here,  certainly,  is  a  striking  contradiction  be- 
tween the  moral  and  the  social  idea.  How  many 
eminent  spirits,  after  having  moralized  over  these 
assertions,  repose  in  peace.     It  is  a  thing  I  never 


142  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,   AND 

could  understand,  for  it  seems  to  me  tliat  nothing 
can  be  more  distressing  than  to  discover  two  oppo- 
site tendencies  in  mankind.  Why,  it  comes  to 
degradation  at  each  of  the  extremes :  economy 
brings  it  to  misery ;  prodigality  phmges  it  into 
moral  degradation.  Happily,  these  vulgar  maxims 
exhibit  economy  and  luxury  in  a  false  light,  taking 
account,  as  they  do,  of  those  immediate  conse- 
quences which  are  seen,  and  not  of  the  remote 
ones,  which  are  not  seen.  Let  us  see  if  w^e  can 
rectifj^  this  incomplete  view  of  the  case. 

Joseph  Spendall  and  Jacob  Saveall,  after  receiv- 
ing their  parental  inheritance,  have  each  an  income 
of  $10,000.  Joseph  Spendall  practices  the  fash- 
ionable philanthropy.  He  is  what  is  called  a 
squanderer  of  money.  He  renews  his  furniture 
several  times  a  year ;  changes  his  equipages  every 
month.  People  talk  of  his  ingenious  contrivances 
to  bring  them  sooner  to  an  end :  in  short,  he  sur- 
passes the  fast  personages  who  figure  in  the  modern 
novels. 

Thus  everybody  is  singing  his  praises.  It  is, 
"  Tell  us  about  Joseph  Spendall  for  ever !  He  is 
the  benefactor  of  the  workman  ;  a  blessing  to  the 
people.  It  is  true,  he  revels  in  dissipation  ;  he 
splashes  the  passers-by ;  his  own  dignity  and  that 
of  human  nature  are  lowered  a  little ;  bat  what 
of  that?     He  does  good  with  his  fortune,  if  not 


THAT   WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  143 

with  himself.  He  causes  money  to  circulate ;  he 
always  sends  the  tradespeople  away  satisfied.  Is 
not  money  made  round  tliat  it  may  roll  ? " 

Jacob  has  adopted  a  very  different  plan  of  life. 
If  lie  is  not  an  egotist,  he  is,  at  any  rate,  an  indi- 
vidualist^ for  he  considers  expense,  seeks  only 
moderate  and  reasonable  enjoyments,  thinks  of 
his  children's  prospects,  and,  in  fact,  he  econo- 
mizes. 

And  what  do  people  say  of  him  ?  *'  What  is 
the  good  of  a  rich  fellow  like  him  ?  He  is  an  old 
skinflint." 

There  is  something  dignified  in  the  simplicity 
of  his  life ;  and  he  is  humane,  too,  and  benevolent, 
and  generous,  but  he  calculates.  He  does  not 
spend  his  income;  his  house  is  neither  brilliant 
nor  bustling.  What  good  does  he  do  to  the  jew- 
eler, the  carriage-makers,  the  horse-dealers,  and 
confectioners? 

These  opinions,  which  are  antagonistic  to  the 
practice  of  prudence,  frugality,  and  morality,  are 
founded  on  what  strikes  the  eye,  namely,  the  in- 
fluence of  the  expenditures  of  the  prodigal ;  while 
little  or  no  account  is  taken  of  that  which  does 
not  ostentatiously  attract  attention,  nam  el}'',  the 
equal  or  larger  expenditure  of  the  economist. 

But  things  have  been  so  admirably  arranged  by 
the  Divine  inventor  of  social  order,  that  in  this, 


IM  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,  AND" 

as  in  everything  else,  political  economy  and  mor- 
ality, far  from  clashing,  agree ;  and  the  wisdom 
of  Jacob  is  not  only  more  dignified,  but  still  more 
profitable^  than  the  folly  of  Joseph.  And  when  I 
say  profitable,  I  do  not  mean  only  profitable  to 
Jacob,  or  even  to  society  in  general,  but  more  pro- 
fitable to  the  workmen  themselves — to  the  trade 
of  the  time. 

To  prove  it,  it  is  only  necessary  to  turn  the 
mind's  eye  to  those  hidden  consequences  of  human 
actions  which  the  bodily  eye  does  not  see. 

Yes,  the  prodigality  of  Joseph  has  visible  eflfects 
in  ever}^  point  of  view.  Everybody  can  see  his 
fine  house,  his  elegant  carriage,  his  superb  paint- 
ings, his  fleet  yacht,  and  his  costly  attire.  Every 
one  knows  that  his  horses  run  upon  the  turf.  The 
dinners  which  he  gives  attract  the  attention  of  the 
crowds  on  the  avenues ;  and  it  is  said,  "  That  is  a 
generous  man ;  far  from  saving  his  income,  he  is 
very  likely  breaking  into  his  capital."  That  is 
what  is  seen. 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  see,  with  regard  to  the  inter- 
est of  workers,  what  becomes  of  the  income  of 
Saveall.  If  we  were  to  trace  it  carefully,  however, 
we  should  see  that  the  whole  of  it,  down  to  the 
last  farthing,  affords  work  to  the  laborers  as  cer- 
tainly as  the  fortune  of  Spendall.  Only  there  is 
this  difference  :  the  wanton  extravagance  of  Joseph 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  145 

is  doomed  to  be  constantly  decreasing,  and  to  come 
to  an  end  without  fail ;  whilst  the  wise  expendi- 
ture of  Jacob  will  go  on  increasing  from  year  to 
year.  And  if  this  is  the  case,  then,  most  assur- 
edly, the  public  interest  will  be  in  unison  with 
moralit3\ 

Joseph  spends  upon  himself  and  his  household 
$5,000  a  year.  If  that  is  not  sufficient  to  con- 
tent him,  he  does  not  deserve  to  be  called  a 
wise  man.  He  is  touched  by  the  miseries  which 
oppress  the  poorer  classes ;  he  thinks  he  is  bound 
in  conscience  to  aiford  them  some  relief,  and 
therefore  he  devotes  $2,000  to  acts  of  benevolence. 
Amongst  the  merchants,  the  manufacturers,  and 
the  amculturists  he  has  friends  who  are  sufferins: 
under  temporary  difficulties;  he  makes  himself 
acquainted  with  their  situation,  that  he  may  assist 
them  with  prudence  and  efficiency,  and  to  this 
work  he  devotes  $2,000  more.  Then  he  does 
not  forget  that  he  has  daughters  to  portion,  and 
sons  for  whose  prospects  it  is  his  duty  to  provide, 
and  therefore  he  considers  it  a  duty  to  lay  by  and 
put  out  to  interest  $2,000  every  year. 
The  following  is  a  list  of  his  expenses : — 

1st.  Personal  expenses $5,000 

2d.  Benevolent  objects 2,000 

3d.  Offices  of  friendship 2,000 

4rth.  Saving 2,000 

7 


146  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

Let  us  examine  each  of  these  items,  and  we 
shall  see  that  not  a  single  farthing  escapes  the  na- 
tional labor. 

1st.  Personal  expenses. — These,  as  far  as  work- 
people and  tradesmen  are  concerned,  have  pre- 
cisely the  same  effect  as  an  eqnal  sum  spent  by 
Spendall.  This  is  self-evident,  therefore  we  shall 
say  no  more  about  it. 

2d.  Benevolent  objects.— The  $2,000  devoted 
to  this  purpose  benefit  trade  in  an  equal  degree ; 
they  reach  the  butcher,  the  baker,  the  tailor,  and 
the  carpenter.  The  only  thing  is,  that  the  bread, 
the  meat,  and  the  clothing  are  not  used  by  Jacob, 
but  by  those  whom  he  has  made  his  substitutes. 
Is'ow,  this  simple  substitution  of  one  consumer  for 
another  in  no  way  affects  trade  in  general.  It  is 
all  one  whether  Jacob  spends  a  dollar  or  desires 
some  unfortunate  person  to  spend  it  instead. 

3d.  Offices. of  friendship. — The  friend  to  whom 
Saveall  lends  or  gives  $2,000  does  not  receive  them 
to  bury  them  ;  that  would  be  against  the  hypo- 
thesis. He  uses  them  to  pay  for  goods,  or  to 
discharge  debts.  In  the  first  case,  trade  is  encour- 
aged. Will  any  one  pretend  to  say  that  it  gains 
more  by  Joseph's  purchase  of  a  thoroughbred 
horse  for  $2,000,  than  by  the  purchase  of  $2,000 
worth  of  stuffs  by  Jacob  or  his  friend  ?  For  if 
this  sum  serves  to  pay  a  debt,  a  third  person  ap. 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  147 

pears,  viz.,  the  creditor,  who  will  certainly  employ 
them  upon  something  in  his  trade,  his  household, 
or  his  farm.  He  forms  another  medium  between 
Saveall  and  the  workmen.  The  names  only  are 
changed,  the  expense  remains,  and  also  the  en- 
couragement to  trade. 

4:th.  Saving. — Tliere  remains  now  the  $2,000 
saved ;  and  it  is  here,  as  regards  the  encourage- 
ment to  the  arts,  to  trade,  labor,  and  the  workmen, 
that  Spendall  appears  far  superior  to  Saveall, 
although,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  Jacob  shows 
himself  in  some  degree  superior  to  Joseph. 

I  can  never  look  at  these  apparent  contradictions 
between  the  great  laws  of  nature  without  a  feeling 
of  physical  uneasiness  which  amounts  to  suffering. 
"Were  mankind  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  choos- 
ing between  two  parties,  one  of  whom  injures  his 
interest,  and  the  other  his  conscience,  we  should 
have  nothing  to  hope  from  the  future.  Happily 
this  is  not  the  case  ;  and  to  see  Jacob  attain  a  po- 
sition of  economical  superiority,  as  well  as  one  of 
moral  superiority,  it  is  sufficient  to  fall  back  upon 
this  consoling  maxim,  which  is  none  the  less  true 
from  having  a  paradoxical  appearance,  "  To  save 
is  to  spend." 

For  what  is  Jacob's  object  in  saving  $2,000  ? 
Is  it  to  bury  them  in  his  garden  ?  Ko,  certainly  ; 
he  intends  to  increase  his  capital  and  his  income ; 


148  THAT  WHICH  IS   SEEN,  AND 

cousequentlj,  tliis  money,  instead  of  being  em- 
ployed upon  liis  own  personal  gratification,  is  used 
for  buying  land,  a  house,  &c.,  or  it  is  placed  in 
tlie  hands  of  a  merchant  or  a  banker.  Follow  the 
progress  of  this  money  in  any  one  of  these  cases, 
and  you  will  be  convinced  that  through  the  me- 
dium of  vendors  or  lenders,  it  is  encouraging 
labor  quite  as  certainly  as  if  Saveall,  following 
the  example  of  Spendall,  had  exchanged  it  for 
furniture,  jewels,  and  horses. 

For  when  Jacob  buys  lands  or  bonds  for  $2,000, 
he  is  determined  by  the  consideration  that  he  does 
not  want  to  spend  this  money.  This  is  why  you 
complain  of  him. 

But,  at  the  same  time,  the  man  who  sells  the 
land  or  the  bonds,  is  determined  by  the  considera- 
tion that  he  doesVant  to  spend  the  $2,000  in  some 
way;  so  that  the  money  is  spent  in  any  case,  either 
by  Jacob  or  by  others  in  his  stead. 

With  respect  to  the  working  class,  to  the  encour- 
agement of  labor,  there  is  only  one  difference 
between  the  conduct  of  Jacob  and  that  of  Joseph. 
Joseph  spends  the  money  himself,  and  around 
him,  and  therefore  the  effect  is  seen.  Jacob, 
spending  it  partly  through  intermediate  parties, 
and  at  a  distance,  the  effect  is  not  seen.  But,  in 
fact,  those  who  know  how  to  attribute  effects  to 
their  proper  causes,  will  perceive,  that  what  is  not 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  149 

seen  is  as  certain  as  what  is  seen.  This  is  proved 
bj  the  fact,  that  in  both  cases  the  money  circulates, 
and  does  not  lie  in  the  iron  chest  of  the  wise  man, 
any  more  than  it  does  in  that  of  the  spendthrift. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  correct  to  say  that  economy 
does  actual  harm  to  trade ;  as  described  above,  it  is 
equally  beneficial  with  luxury. 

But  how  far  superior  is  it,  if,  instead  of  confin- 
ing our  thoughts  to  the  present  moment,  we  let 
them  embrace  a  longer  period  ! 

Ten  years  pass  away.  What  is  become  of 
Joseph  and  his  fortune  and  his  great  popularity  1 
Joseph  is  ruined.  Instead  of  spending  $10,000 
every  year  in  society,  he  is,  perhaps,  a  burden  to 
it.  In  any  case,  he  is  no  longer  the  delight  of 
shopkeepers ;  he  is  no  longer  the  patron  of  the 
arts  and  of  trade ;  he  is  no  longer  of  any  use  to 
the  workmen,  nor  are  his  successors,  whom  he 
has  brought  to  want. 

At  the  end  of  the  same  ten  years  Jacob  not 
only  continues  to  throw  his  income  into  circula- 
tion, but  he  adds  an  increasing  sum  from  year  to 
year  to  his  expenses.  He  enlarges  the  national 
capital,  that  is,  the  fund  which  supplies  wages, 
and  as  it  is  upon  the  extent  of  this  fund  that  the 
demand  for  laborers  depends,  he  assists  in  pro- 
gressively increasing  the  remuneration  of  the 
working  class ;  and  if  he  dies,  he  leaves  children 


150"  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

whom  he  has  taught  to  succeed  him  in  this  work 
of  progress  and  civilization. 

In  a  moral  point  of  view,  the  superiority  of 
frugality  over  luxury  is  indisputable.  It  is  con- 
soling to  think  that  it  is  so  in  political  economy, 
to  every  one  who,  not  confining  his  views  to  the 
immediate  effects  of  phenomena,  knows  how  to 
extend  his  investisjations  to  their  final  effects. 

XII.— HE    WHO    HAS    A   RIGHT    TO    LABOR   HAS   A 
RIGHT  TO  THE  PROFIT  OF  LABOR. 

"  Brethren,  you  must  club  together  to  find  me 
work  at  your  own  price."  This  is  the  right  to 
work;  i.e..,  elementary  socialism  of  the  first  de- 
gree. 

"  Brethren,  you  must  club  together  to  find  me 
work  at  my  own  price."  This  is  the  right  to  pro- 
fit ;  i.e.,  refined  socialism,  or  socialism  of  the 
second  degree. 

Both  of  these  assumptions  live  upon  such  of 
their  effects  as  are  seen.  They  will  die  by  means 
of  those  effects  which  are  not  seen. 

That  which  is  seen  is  the  labor  and  the  profit 
excited  by  social  combination.  That  which  is  not 
seen  is  the  labor  and  the  profit  to  which  tliis  same 
combination  would  give  rise,  if  it  w^ere  left  to  the 
tax-payers. 

In  France,  in  1848,  the   right  to  labor  for  a 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  151 

moment  showed  two  faces.  This  was  sufficient 
to  ruin  it  in  public  opinion. 

One  of  these  faces  was  called  national  worh- 
shops.  The  other  was  a  tax  known  by  the  name 
of  forty-jive  centimes.  Millions  of  francs  went 
daily  from  the  national  treasury  to  the  national 
workshops.     This  was  the  fair  side  of  the  medal. 

And  this  is  the  reverse.  If  millions  are  taken 
out  of  a  cash-box,  they  must  first  have  been  put 
into  it.  This  is  why  the  organizers  of  the  right 
to  public  labor  apply  to  the  tax-payers. 

1^0 w,  the  peasants  said  :  '^  I  must  pay  forty-five 
centimes ;  then  I  mnst  deprive  myself  of  some 
clothing.  I  cannot  manure  my  field ;  I  cannot 
repair  my  house." 

And  the  country  workmen  said :  '^  As  our  towns- 
man deprives  himself  of  some  clothing,  there  will 
be  less  work  for  the  tailor ;  as  he  does  not  im- 
prove his  field,  there  w^ill  be  less  work  for  the 
drainer ;  as  he  does  not  repair  his  house,  there 
will  be  less  work  for  the  carpenter  and  mason." 

It  was  then  proved  that  two  kinds  of  meal 
cannot  come  out  of  one  sack,  and  that  the  work 
furnished  by  the  Government  was  done  at  the  ex- 
pense of  labor,  paid  for  by  the  tax-payer.  This 
was  the  termination  of  the  right  to  labor,  which 
showed  itself  as  much  a  chimera  as  an  injustice. 
And  yet  the  right  to  profit,  which  is  only  an  ex- 


152  THAT  WHICH  IS  SEEN,  AND 

aggeration  of  the  right  to  labor,  is  still  alive  and 
flourishing. 

Ought  not  the  protectionist  to  blush  at  the  part 
he  would  make  society  play  ? 

He  says  to  it :  "  You  must  give  me  work,  and, 
more  than  that,  lucrative  work.  I  have  foolishly 
fixed  upon  a  trade  by  which  I  lose  ten  per  cent. 
If  you  impose  a  tax  of  twenty  per  cent,  upon  my 
countrymen,  and  give  it  to  me,  I  shall  be  a  gainer 
instead  of  a  loser.  Now,  profit  is  my  right ;  you 
owe  it  me."  'Now,  any  society  which  would 
listen  to  this  sophist,  burden  itself  with  taxes  to 
satisfy  him,  and  not  perceive  that  the  loss  to 
which  any  trade  is  exposed  is  no  less  a  loss  when 
others  are  forced  to  make  up  for  it, — such  a 
society,  1  say,  would  deserve  the  burden  inflicted 
upon  it. 

Thus  we  learn  by  the  numerous  subjects  which 
I  have  treated,  that,  to  be  ignorant  of  political 
economy  is  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  misled  by  the 
immediate  efi'ect  of  a  phenomenon  ;  to  be  ac- 
quainted with  it  is  to  embrace  in  thought  and  in 
forethought  the  whole  compass  of  effects. 

I  might  subject  a  host  of  other  questions  to  the 
same  test ;  but  I  shrink  from  the  monotony  of  a 
constantly  uniform  demonstration,  and  I  conclude 
by  applying  to  political  economy  what  Chateau- 
briand says  of  history  : — 


THAT  WHICH  IS  NOT  SEEN.  153 

"  There  are,"  lie  says,  "  two  consequences  in 
history ;  an  immediate  one,  which  is  instantly  re- 
cognized, and  one  in  the  distance,  which  is  not  at 
first  perceived.  These  consequences  often  contra- 
dict each  other  ;  the  former  are  the  results  of  our 
own  limited  wisdom ;  the  latter,  those  of  that  wis- 
dom which  endures.  The  providential  event  ap- 
pears after  the  human  event.  God  rises  up  be- 
hind men.  Deny,  if  you  will,  the  supreme 
counsel ;  disow^n  its  action  ;  dispute  about  words ; 
designate  by  the  term  force  of  circumstances,  or 
reason,  what  the  vulgar  call  Providence  ;  but  look 
to  the  end  of  an  accomplished  fact,  and  you  will 
see  that  it  has  always  produced  the  contrary  of 
what  was  expected  from  it,  if  it  was  not  estab- 
lished at  first  upon  morality  and  justice." — 
Chateavhriand^ s  Posthumous  Memoirs, 


154:  GOVERNMENT. 


GOYEKKMENT. 


I  WISH  some  one  would  offer  a  prize  for  a  good, 
simple,  and  intelligent  definition  of  the  word 
"  Government." 

What  an  immense  service  it  would  confer  on 
society  ! 

The  Government !  what  is  it  ?  where  is  it  ? 
what  does  it  do  ?  what  ought  it  to  do  ?  All  we 
know  is,  that  it  is  a  mysterious  personage ;  and, 
assuredly,  it  is  the  most  solicited,  the  most  tor- 
mented, the  most  overwhelmed,  the  most  ad- 
mired, the  most  accused,  the  most  invoked,  and 
the  most  provoked  of  any  personage  in  the 
world. 

I  have  not  the  pleasure  of  knowing  my  reader, 
but  I  would  stake  ten  to  one  that  for  six  months 
he  has  been  making  Utopias,  and  if  so,  that  he 
is  looking  to  Government  for  the  realization  of 
them. 

And  should  the  reader  happen  to  be  a  lady,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  she  is  sincerely  desirous  of 
seeing  all  the  evils  of  suffering  humanity  reme- 


GOVEENMENT.  155 

died,  and  that  she  thinks  this  might  easily  be 
done,  if  Government  wo-uld  only  midertake  it. 

But,  alas !  that  poor  unfortunate  personage, 
like  Figaro,  knows  not  to  whom  to  listen,  nor 
where  to  turn.  The  hundred  thousand  mouths  of 
the  press  and  of  the  platform  cry  out  all  at  once  : — 

"  Organize  labor  and  workmen. 

"  Repress  insolence  and  the  tyranny  of  capital. 

*'  Make  experiments  upon  manure  and  eggs. 

"  Covei-  the  country  with  railways. 

"  Irrigate  the  plains. 

"  Plant  the  hills. 

*'  Make  model  farms. 

"  Found  social  workshops. 

"  E^urture  children. 

"  Instruct  the  youth. 

"  Assist  the  aged. 

"Send  the  inhabitants  of  towns  into  the 
country. 

"  Equalize  the  profits  of  all  trades. 

"  Lend  money  without  interest  to  all  who  wish 
to  borrow. 

"  Emancipate  oppressed  people  everyw^here. 

"  Eear  and  perfect  the  saddle-horse. 

"Encourage  the  arts,  and  provide  lis  with 
musicians,  painters,  and  architects. 

"  Restrict  commerce,  and  at  the  same  time 
create  a  merchant  navy. 


166  GOVERNMENT. 

"  Discover  truth,  and  put  a  grain  of  reason 
into  our  heads.  The  mission  of  Government  is 
to  enh'ghten  to  develop,  to  extend,  to  fortify,  to 
spiritualize,  and  to  sanctify  the  soul  of  the  peo- 
ple." 

"Do  have  a  little  patience,  gentlemen,''  says 
Government,  in  a  beseeching  tone.  "  I  will  do 
what  I  can  to  satisfy  you,  but  for  this  I  must  have 
resources.  I  have  been  preparing  plans  for  five 
or  six  taxes,  which  are  quite  new,  and  not  at  all 
oppressive.  You  will  see  how  willingly  people 
will  pay  them." 

Then  comes  a  great  exclamation  ; — "  'No  !  in- 
deed !  where  is  the  merit  of  doing  a  thing  with 
resources  ?  Why,  it  does  not  deserve  the  name 
of  a  Government !  So  far  from  loading  us  with 
fresh  taxes,  we  would  have  you  withdraw  the  old 
ones.     Yod  ought  to  suppress 

*'  The  tobacco  tax. 

"  The  tax  on  liquors. 

*'  The  tax  on  letters. 

"  Custom-house  duties. 

"  Patents." 

In  the  midst  of  this  tumult,  and  now  that  the 
country  has  again  and  again  changed  the  admin- 
istration, for  not  having  satisfied  all  its  demands, 
I  wanted  to  show  that  they  were  contradictory. 
But  what  could  I  have   been  thinking  about? 


GOVERNMENT.  157 

Could  I  not  keep  this  unfortunate  observation  to 
myself  ? 

I  have  lost  my  character  forever !  I  am  looked 
upon  as  a  man  without  heart  and  without  feeling 
— a  dry  philosopher,  an  individualist,  a  plebeian — ■ 
in  a  word,  an  economist  of  the  practical  school. 
But,  pardon  me,  sublime  writers,  who  stop  at  noth- 
ing, not  even  at  contradictions.  I  am  wrong, 
without  a  doubt,  and  I  would  willingly  retract. 
I  should  be  glad  enough,  you  may  be  sure,  if  you 
had  really  discovered  a  beneficent  and  inexhaus- 
tible being,  calling  itself  the  Government,  which 
has  bread  for  all  mouths,  work  for  all  hands,  capi- 
tal for  all  enterprises,  credit  for  all  projects,  oil 
for  all  wounds,  balm  for  all  sufferings,  advice  for 
all  perplexities,  solutions  for  all  doubts,  truths  for 
all  intellects,  diversions  for  all  who  want  them, 
milk  for  infancy,  and  wine  for  old  age — which  can 
provide  for  all  our  wants,  satisfy  all  our  curiosity, 
correct  all  our  errors,  repair  all  our  faults,  and 
exempt  us  henceforth  from  the  necessity  for  fore- 
sight, prudence,  judgment,  sagacity,  experience, 
order,  economy,  temperance,  and  activity. 

What  reason  could  I  have  for  not  desiring  to 
see  such  a  discovery  made  ?  Indeed,  the  more  I 
reflect  upon  it,  the  more  do  I  see  that  nothing 
could  be  more  convenient  than  that  we  should  all 
of    us  have  within  our  reach  an  inexhaustible 


158  GOVERNMENT. 

source  of  weaitli  and  enlightenment — a  universal 
ph3\sician,  an  unlimited  treasure,  and  an  infallible 
counselor,  such  as  you  describe  Government  to 
be.  Therefore  it  is  that  I  want  to  have  it  pointed 
out  and  defined,  and  that  a  prize  should  be  of- 
fered to  the  first  discoverer  of  the  phoenix.  For 
no  one  would  think  of  asserting  that  this  precious 
discovery  has  yet  been  made,  since  up  to  this  time 
everything  presenting  itself  under  the  name  of 
the  Government  has  at  some  time  been  over- 
turned by  tlie  people,  precisely  because  it  does 
not  fulfill  the  rather  contradictory  conditions  of 
the  programme. 

I  will  venture  to  say  that  I  fear  we  are,  in  this 
respect,  the  dupes  of  one  of  the  strangest  illusions 
which  have  ever  taken  possession  of  the  human 
mind. 

Man  recoils  from  trouble— from  suffering ;  and 
yet  he  is  condemned  by  nature  to  the  suffering  of 
privation,  if  he  does  not  take  the  trouble  to  work, 
lie  has  to  choose,  then,  between  these  two  evils. 
"What  means  can  he  adopt  to  avoid  both  ?  There 
remains  now,  and  there  will  remain,  only  one 
way,  which  is,  to  enjoy  the  labor  of  others.  Such 
a  course  of  conduct  prevents  the  trouble  and  the 
satisfaction  from  preserving  their  natural  propor- 
tion, and  causes  all  the  trouble  to  become  the  lot 
of  one  set  of  persons,  and  all  the  satisfaction  that 


GOVERNMENT.  159 

of  anotlier.  This  is  the  origin  of  slavery  and  of 
plunder,  whatever  its  form  may  be — whether  that 
of  wars,  imposition,  violence,  restrictions,  frauds, 
&c. — monstrous  abuses,  but  consistent  with  the 
thought  which  has  given  them  birth.  Oppression, 
should  be  detested  and  resisted — it  can  hardly  be 
called  absurd. 

Slavery  is  disappearing,  thank  heaven  !  and,  on. 
the  other  hand,  our  disposition  to  defend  our  prop- 
erty prevents  direct  and  open  plunder  from  being 
easy. 

One  thing,  however,  remains — it  is  the  original 
inclination  which  exists  in  all  men  to  divide  the 
lot  of  life  into  two  parts,  throwing  the  trouble 
upon  others,  and  keeping  the  satisfaction  for  them- 
selves. It  remains  to  be  shown  under  what  new 
form  this  sad  tendency  is  manifesting  itself. 

The  oppressor  no  longer  acts  directly  and  with 
his  own  powers  upon  his  victim.  Ko,  our  con- 
science has  become  too  sensitive  for  that.  The 
tyrant  and  his  victim  are  still  present,  but  there 
is  an  intermediate  person  between  them,  which  is 
the  Government — that  is,  the  Law  itself.  What 
can  be  better  calculated  to  silence  our  scruples, 
and,  which  is  perhaps  better  appreciated,  to  over- 
come all  resistance  ?  We  all,  therefore,  put  in  our 
claim,  under  some  pretext  or  other,  and  apply  to 
Government.     We  say  to  it,  ^'  I  am  dissatisfied  at 


160  GOYERNMENT. 

the  proportion  between  my  labor  and  my  enjoy- 
ments. I  slioiild  like,  for  the  sake  of  restoring 
the  desired  equilibrium,  to  take  a  part  of  the  pos- 
sessions of  others.  But  this  would  be  dangerous. 
Could  not  you  facilitate  the  thing  for  me  ?  Could 
you  not  find  me  a  good  place  ?  or  check  the  indus- 
try of  my  competitors?  or,  perhaps,  lend  me 
gratuitously  some  capital,  which  you  may  take 
from  its  possessor?  Could  you  not  bring  up  my 
children  at  the  public  expense  ?  or  grant  me  some 
prizes  ?  or  secure  me  a  competence  when  I  have 
attained  my  fiftieth  year  ?  By  this  means  I  shall 
gain  my  end  with  an  easy  conscience,  for  the  law 
will  Jiave  acted  for  me,  and  I  shall  have  all  the 
advantages  of  plunder,  without  its  risk  or  its  dis- 
grace ! " 

As  it  is  certain,  on  the  one  hand,  that  we  are 
all  making  some  similar  request  to  the  Govern- 
ment ;  and  as,  on  the  other,  it  is  proved  that  Gov- 
ernment cannot  satisfy  one  party  without  adding 
to  the  labor  of  the  others,  until  I  can  obtain  another 
definition  of  the  word  Government  I  feel  author- 
ized to  give  my  own.  Who  knows  but  it  may 
obtain  the  prize?     Here  it  is: 

Government  is  the  great  fiction  through  which 
everybody  endeavors  to  live  at  the  exjpense  of  every- 
body else. 

For  now,  as  formerly,  every  one  is,  more  or 


GOYEBNMENT.  161 

less,  for  profiting  by  the  labors  of  others.  'No  one 
would  dare  to  profess  such  a  sentiment;  he  even 
hides  it  from  himself;  and  then  what  is  done?  A 
medium  is  thought  of;  Government  is  applied  to, 
and  every  class  in  its  turn  comes  to  it,  and  says, 
"  You,  who  can  take  justifiably  and  honestly,  take 
from  the  public,  and  we  will  partake."  Alas! 
Government  is  only  too  much  disposed  to  follow 
this  diabolical  advice,  for  it  is  composed  of  minis- 
ters and  officials — of  men,  in  short,  who,  like  all 
other  men,  desire  in  their  hearts,  and  always  seize 
every  opportunity  with  eagerness,  to  increase  their 
wealth  and  influence.  Government  is  not  slow  to 
perceive  the  advantages  it  may  derive  from  the 
part  which  is  entrusted  to  it  by  the  public.  It  is 
glad  to  be  the  judge  and  the  master  of  the  desti- 
nies of  all;  it  will  take  much,  for  then  a  large 
share  will  remain  for  itself;  it  will  multiply  the 
number  of  its  agents ;  it  will  enlarge  the  circle  of 
its  privileges ;  it  will  end  by  appropriating  a  ruin- 
ous proportion. 

But  the  most  remarkable  part  of  it  is  the  aston- 
ishing blindnesss  of  the  public  through  it  all. 
When  successful  soldiers  used  to  reduce  the  van- 
quished to  slavery,  they  were  barbarous,  but  they 
were  not  absurd.  Their  object,  like  ours,  was  to 
live  at  other  people's  expense,  and  they  did  not 
fail  to  do  so.     What  are  we  to  tJiink  of  a  people 


162  GOVERNMENT. 

who  never  seein  to  suspect  that  reciprocal jplunder 
is  no  less  phinder  because  it  is  reciprocal ;  that  it 
is  no  less  criminal  because  it  is  executed  legally 
and  with  order ;  that  it  adds  nothing  to  the  public 
good;  that  it  diminishes  it,  just  in  proportion  to 
the  cost  of  the  expensive  medium  which  we  call 
the  Government? 

And  it  is  this  great  chimera  which  the  French 
nation,  for  example,  placed  in  1848,  for  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  people,  as  a  frontispiece  to  its  Con-_ 
stitution.     Tlie  following  is  the  beginning  of  the 
preamble  to  this  Constitution  : — 

"France  has  constituted  itself  a  republic  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  all  the  citizens  to  an  ever- 
increasing  degree  of  morality,  enlightment,  and 
well-being." 

Thus  it  is  France,  or  an  abstraction,  which  is 
to  raise  the  French  to  morality,  well-being,  &c. 
Is  it  not  by  yielding  to  this  strange  delusion  that 
we  are  led  to  expect  everything  from  an  energy 
not  our  own?  Is  it  not  giving  out  that  there  is, 
independently  of  the  French,  a  virtuous,  enlight- 
ened, and  rich  being,  who  can  and  will  bestow 
upon  them  its  benefits  ?  Is  not  this  supposing, 
and  certainly  very  gratuitously,  that  there  are 
between  France  and  the  French — between  the 
simple,  abridged,  and  abstract  denomination  of  all 
the  individualities,  and  these  individualities  them- 


GOVERNMENT.  163 

selves — relations  as  of  father  to  son,  tutor  to  liis  pu- 
pil, professor  to  his  scholar  ?  I  know  it  is  often  said, 
metaphorically,  "  the  country  is  a  tender  mother." 
But  to  show  the  inanity  of  such  a  constitutional 
proposition,  it  is  only  needed  to  show  that  it  may 
be  reversed,  not  only  without  inconvenience,  but 
even  with  advantage.  Would  it  be  less  exact  to  say : 

*'  The  French  have  constituted  themselves  a  Re- 
public to  raise  France  to  an  ever-increasing  degree 
of  morality,  enlightenment,  and  well-being." 

JN'ow,  where  is  the  value  of  an  axiom  where  the 
subject  and  the  attribute  may  change  places  with- 
out inconvenience  ?  Everybody  understands  what 
is  meant  by  this :  "  The  mother  will  feed  the 
child."  But  it  would  be  ridiculous  to  say,  "The 
child  will  feed  the  mother." 

The  Americans  formed  another  idea  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  citizens  with  the  Government  when 
they  placed  these  simple  words  at  the  head  of  their 
Constitution : — 

"  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
purpose  of  forming  a  more  perfect  union,  of  estab- 
lishing justice,  of  securing  interior  tranquillity,  of 
providing  for  our  common  defense,  of  increasing 
the  general  well-being,  and  of  securing  the  benefits 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  to  our  posterity,  de- 
cree," &c. 

Here  there  is  no  chimerical  creation,  no  ah- 


164  GOVERNMENT. 

straction,  from  which  the  citizens  may  demand 
everything.  They  expect  nothing  except  from 
themselves  and  their  own  energy. 

If  I  may  be  permitted  to  criticise  the  first  words 
of  the  French  Constitution  of  1848,  I  would  re- 
mark, that  what  I  complain  of  is  something  more 
than  a  mere  metaphysical  subtilty,  as  might  seem 
at  first  sight. 

I  contend  that  this  personification  of  Govern- 
ment has  been,  in  past  times,  and  will  be  hereafter, 
a  fertile  source  of  calamities  and  revolutions. 

There  is  the  public  on  one  side.  Government  on 
the  other,  considered  as  two  distinct  beings ;  the 
latter  bound  to  bestow  upon  the  former,  and  the 
former  having  the  right  to  claim  from  the  latter, 
all  imaginable  human  benefits.  What  will  be  the 
consequence  ? 

In  fact,  Government  is  not  maimed,  and  cannot 
be  so.  It  has  two  hands — one  to  receive  and  the 
other  to  give ;  in  other  words,  it  has  a  rough  hand 
and  a  smooth  one.  The  activity  of  the  second  is 
necessarily  subordinate  to  the  activity  of  the  first. 
Strictly,  Government  may  take  and  not  restore. 
This  is  evident,  and  may  be  explained  by  the  por- 
ous and  absorbing  nature  of  its  hands,  which 
always  retain  a  part,  and  sometimes  the  whole,  of 
what  they  touch.  But  the  thing  that  never  was 
seen,  and  never  will  be  seen  or  conceived,  is,  that 


GOVEENMENT.  165 

Government  can  restore  more  to  the  public  than 
it^ias  taken  from  it.  It  is  therefore  ridiculous  for 
ns  to  appear  before  it  in  the  humble  attitude  of 
beggars.  It  is  radically  impossible  for  it  to  confer 
a  particular  benefit  upon  any  one  of  the  individu- 
alities which  constitute  the  community,  without 
inflicting  a  greater  injury  upon  the  community  as 
a  w^hole. 

Our  requisitions,  therefore,  place  it  in  a  dilemma. 

If  it  refuses  to  grant  the  requests  made  to  it,  it 
is  accused  of  weakness,  ill-will,  and  incapacity.  If 
it  endeavors  to  grant  them,  it  is  obliged  to  load 
the  people  with  fresh  taxes — to  do  more  harm  than 
good,  and  to  bring  upon  itself  frojn  another  quar- 
ter the  general  displeasure. 

Thus,  the  public  has  two  hopes,  and  Govern- 
ment makes  two  promises — many  benefits  and  no 
taxes.  Hopes  and  promises,  which,  being  contra- 
dictory, can  never  be  realized. 

Now,  is  not  this  the  cause  of  all  our  revolutions  ? 
For,  between  the  Government,  which  lavishes 
promises  w^hich  it  is  impossible  to  perform,  and 
the  public,  which  has  conceived  hopes  which  can 
never  be  realized,  two  classes  of  men  interpose — 
the  ambitious  and  the  Utopians.  It  is  circum- 
stances which  give  these  their  cue.  It  is  enough  if 
these  vassals  of  popularity  cry  out  to  the  people  : 
**  The  authorities  are  deceiving  you ;  if  we  were 


166  GOVERNMENT. 

in  tlieir  place,  we  would  load  jou  with  benefits 
and  exempt  you  from  taxes." 

And  tlie  j^eople  believe,  and  the  people  hope, 
and  the  people  make  a  revolution ! 

No  sooner  are  their  friends  at  the  head  of  affairs, 
than  they  are  called  upon  to  redeem  their  pledge. 
"  Give  us  work,  bread,  assistance,  credit,  instruc- 
tion, more  money,"  say  the  people;  "and  withal 
deliver  us,  as  you  promised,  from  the  demands  of 
the  tax-gatherers." 

The  new  Oovernment  is  no  less  embarrassed 
tlian  the  former  one,  for  it  soon  finds  that  it  is 
much  more  easy  to  promise  than  to  perform.  It 
tries  to  gain  time,  for  this  is  necessary  for  matur- 
ing its  vast  projects.  At  first,  it  makes  a  few 
timid  attempts.  On  one  hand  it  institutes  a  little 
elementary  instruction ;  on  the  other,  it  makes  a 
little  reduction  in  some  taxes.  But  the  contradic- 
tion is  forever  starting  up  before  it ;  if  it  would 
be  philantlu'opic,  it  must  attend  to  its  exchequer ; 
if  it  neglects  its  exchequer,  it  must  abstain  from 
being  philanthropic. 

These  two  promises  are  for  ever  clashing  with 
each  other;  it  cannot  be  otherwise.  To  live  upon 
credit,  which  is  the  same  as  exliausting  the  future, 
is  certainly  a  present  means  of  reconciling  them  : 
an  attempt  is  made  to  do  a  little  good  now,  at  the 
expense  of  a  great  deal  of  harm  in  future.     But 


GOVERNMENT.  167 

sncli  proceedings  call  fortli  the  spectre  of  bank- 
ruptcy, wliicli  puts  an  end  to  credit.  What  is  to 
be  done  then  ?  Why,  then,  the  new  Government 
takes  a  bold  step ;  it  unites  all  its  forces  in  order 
to  maintain  itself ;  it  smothers  opinion,  has  recourse 
to  arbitrary  measures,  ridicules  its  former  maxims, 
declares  that  it  is  impossible  to  conduct  the  ad- 
ministration except  at  the  risk  of  being  unpopular ; 
in  short,  it  proclaims  itself  governmental.  And  it 
is  here  tliat  other  candidates  for  popularity  are 
waiting  for  it.  They  exhibit  the  same  illusion, 
j)ass  by  the  same  way,  obtain  the  same  success, 
and  are  soon  swallowed  up  in  the  same  gulf. 

We  had  arrived  at  this  point,  in  France,  in  Feb- 
ruar}^,  1849.^  At  this  time  the  illusion  which  is 
the  subject  of  this  article  had  made  more  way  than 
at  any  former  period  in  the  ideas  of  the  French 
people,  in  connection  with  Socialist  doctrines. 
Tbey  expected,  more  firmly  than  ever,  that  Gov- 
ernment^ under  a  republican  form,  would  open  in 
grand  style  the  source  of  benefits  and  close  that  of 
taxation.  *'We  have  often  been  deceived,"  said 
the  people ;  "but  we  w411  see  to  it  ourselves  this 
time,  and  take  care  not  to  be  deceived  again  ? " 

What  could  the  Provisional  Government  do? 
Alas !  just  that  which  always  is  done  in  similar 

*  This  was  written  in  1849 


168  GOVERNMENT. 

circumstances — make  promises,  and  gain  time.  It 
did  so,  of  course ;  and  to  give  its  promises  more 
weight,  it  announced  them  pnbliel}^  thus  : — "  In- 
crease of  prosperity,  diminution  of  labor,  assistance, 
credit,  gratuitous  instruction,  agricultural  colonies, 
cultivation  of  waste  land,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
reduction  of  the  tax  on  salt,  liquor,  letters,  meat; 
all  this  shall  be  granted  when  the  JSTational  As- 
sembly meets." 

The  National  Assembly  meets,  and,  as  it  is  im- 
possible to  realize  two  contradictory  things,  its 
task,  its  sad  task,  is  to  withdraw,  as  gently  as  pos- 
sible, one  after  the  other,  all  the  decrees  of  the 
Provisional  Government.  However,  in  order 
somewhat  to  mitigate  the  cruelty  of  tlie  deception, 
it  is  found  necessary  to  negotiate  a  little.  Certain 
engagements  are  fulfilled,  others  are,  in  a  measure, 
begun,  and  therefore  the  new  administration  is 
compelled  to  contrive  some  new  taxes. 

Now,  I  transport  myself,  in  thought,  to  a  period 
a  few  months  hence,  and  ask  myself,  with  sorrow- 
ful forebodings,  what  will  come  to  pass  when  the 
agents  of  the  new  Government  go  into  the  coun- 
try to  collect  new  taxes  upon  legacies,  revenues, 
and  the  profits  of  agricultural  traffic?  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  my  presentiments  may  not  be  verified, 
but  I  foresee  a  difficult  part  for  the  candidates  for 
popularity  to  play. 


GOVERNMENT.  169 

Eead  the  last  manifesto  of  one  of  the  political 
parties — which  they  issued  on  the  occasion  of  the 
election  of  the  President.  It  is  rather  long,  but 
at  length  it  concludes  with  these  words  : — '\Govern- 
ment  ought  to  give  a  great  deal  to  the  peojple^  and. 
talce  little  from  themP  It  is  always  the  same  tac- 
tics, or,  rather,  the  same  mistake. 

"  Government  is  bound  to  give  gratuitous  in- 
struction and  education  to  all  the  citizens." 

It  is  bound  to  give  ^' A  general  and  appropriate 
professional  education,  as  much  as  possible  adapted 
to  the  wants,  the  callings,  and  the  capacities  of 
each  citizen." 

It  is  bound  "  To  teach  every  citizen  his  duty  to 
God,  to  man,  and  to  himself ;  to  develop  his  senti- 
ments, his  tendencies,  and  his  faculties ;  to  teach 
him,  in  short,  the  scientific  part  of  his  labor ;  to 
make  him  understand  his  own  interests,  and  to 
give  him  a  knowledge  of  his  rights." 

It  is  bound  "  To  place  within  the  reach  of  all, 
literature  and  the  arts,  the  patrimony  of  thought, 
the  treasures  of  the  mind,  and  all  those  intellec- 
tual enjoyments  which  elevate  and  strengthen 
the  soul." 

It  is  bound  "  To  give  compensation  for  every 
accident,  from  fire,  inundation  &c.,  experienced 
by  a  citizen."     (The  et  ccetera  means  more  than  it 

'•)  ■  8 


170  GOYEBNMENT. 

It  is  bound  "  To  attend  to  the  relations  of  capi- 
tal with  labor,  and  to  become  the  j-egulator  of 
credit." 

It  is  bound  "  To  afford  important  encourage- 
ment and  efficient  protection  to  agriculture." 

It  is  bound  "  To  purchase  railroads,  canals,  and 
mines;  and,  doubtless,  to  transact  affairs  with  that 
industrial  capacity  wdiich  characterizes  it." 

It  is  bound  *'  To  encourage  useful  experiments, 
to  promote  and  assist  them  by  every  means  likely 
to  make  them  successful.  As  a  regulator  of  credit, 
it  will  exercise  such  extensive  influence  over  in- 
dustrial and  agricultural  associations  as  shall  in- 
sure them  success." 

Government  is  bound  to  do  all  this,  in  addition 
to  the  services  to  which  it  is  already  pledged ; 
and  further,  it  is  always  to  maintain  a  menacing 
attitude  toward  foreigners ;  for,  according  to  those 
who  sign  the  programme,  "  Bound  together  by 
this  holy  union,  and  by  the  precedents  of  the 
French  [Republic,  we  carry  our  wishes  and  hopes 
beyond  the  boundaries  wliich  despotism  has  placed 
between  nations.  The  rights  which  we  desire  for 
ourselves,  we  desire  for  all  those  who  are  oppres- 
sed by  the  yoke  of  t^Tanny ;  we  desire  that  our 
glorious  army  should  still,#if  necessary,  be  the 
army  of  liberty." 

You  see  that  the  gentle  hand  of  Government — • 


GOVERMMENT.  171 

that  good  hand  which  gives  and  distributes,  will 
be  very  busy  under  the  government  of  the  reform- 
ers. You  think,  perhaps,  that  it  will  be  the  same 
with  the  rough  hand — that  hand  which  dives  into 
our  pockets.  Do  not  deceive  yourselves.  The 
aspirants  after  popularity  would  not  know  their 
trade,  if  they  had  not  the  art,  when  they  show  the 
gentle  hand,  to  conceal  the  rough  one.  Their 
reign  will  assuredly  be  the  jubilee  of  the  tax- 
payers. 

"  It  is  superfluities,  not  necessaries,"  they  say, 
"  which  onght  to  be  taxed." 

Truly,  it  will  be  a  good  time  when  the  ex- 
chequer, for  the  sake  of  loading  us  with  benefits, 
will  content  itself  with  curtailing  our  superfluities  ! 

This  is  not  all.  The  reformers  intend  that 
"taxation  shall  lose  its  oppressive  character,  and 
be  only  an  act  of  fraternity."  Good  heavens  !  I 
know  it  is  the  fashion  to  thrust  fraternity  in  every- 
where, but  I  did  not  imagine  it  would  ever  be  put 
into  the  hands  of  the  tax-gatherer. 

To  come  to  the  details : — Those  who  sign  the 
programme  say,  "  We  desire  the  immediate  aboli- 
tion of  those  taxes  which  affect  the  absolute  neces- 
saries of  life,  as  salt,  liquors,  &c.,  &c. 

"  The  reform  of  the  tax  on  landed  property, 
customs,  and  patents. 

"  Gratuitous  justice — that  is,  the  simplification 


172  GOVERNMENT. 

of  its  forms,  and  reduction  of  its  expenses."  (This, 
no  doubt,  has  reference  to  stamps.) 

Thus,  the  tax  on  landed  property,  customs,  pa- 
tents, stamps^  salt,  liquors,  postage,  all  are  included. 
These  gentlemen  have  found  out  the  secret  of 
giving  an  excessive  activity  to  the  gentle  hand 
of  Government,  while  they  entirely  paralyze  its 
Toihgh  ha7id. 

Well,  I  ask  the  impartial  reader,  is  it  not  child- 
ishness, and  more  than  that,  dangerous  childish- 
ness ?  Is  it  not  inevitable  that  we  shall  have 
revolution  after  revolution,  if  there  is  a  determin- 
ation never  to  stop  till  this  contradiction  is  real- 
ized : — "  To  give  nothing  to  Government  and  to 
receive  much  from  it  ? " 

If  the  'reformers  were  to  come  into  power, 
would  they  not  become  the  victims  of  the  means 
which  they  employed  to  take  possession  of  it  ? 

Citizens !  In  all  times,  two  political  systems 
have  been  in  existence,  and  each  may  be  maintained 
by  good  reasons.  According  to  one  of  them, 
Government  ought  to  do  much,  but  then  it  ought 
to  take  much.  According  to  the  other,  this  two- 
fold activity  ought  to  be  little  felt.  "VVe  have  to 
choose  between  these  two  systems.  But  as  re- 
gards the  third  system,  which  partakes  of  both  the 
others,  and  which  consists  in  exacting  everything 
from  Government,  without  giving  it  anything,  it 


GOVERNMENT.  173 

is  cliimerical,  absurd,  childish,  contradictory,  and 
dangerous.  Those  who  parade  it,  for  the  sake  of 
the  pleasure  of  accusing  all  Governments  of  weak- 
ness, and  thus  exposing  them  to  your  attacks,  are 
only  flattering  and  deceiving  you,  while  they  are 
deceiving  themselves. 

For  ourselves,  we  consider  that  Government 
is  and  ouo^ht  to  be  nothins:  whatever  but  the 
united  power  of  the  people,  organized,  not  to  be 
an  instrument  of  oppression  and  mutual  plunder 
among  citizens ;  but,  on  the  the  contrary,  to 
sec  are  to  every  one  his  own,  and  to  cause  justice 
and  security  to  reign. 


174  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 


WHAT  IS  MOISTEY? 


"  Hateful    money  !     hateful    money ! "    cried 

F -,  the  economist,  despairingly,  as  he  came 

from  tlie  Committee  of  Finance,  where  a  project 
of  paper  money  had  just  been  discussed. 

"  What's  the  matter  ?  "  said  I.  "  What  is  the 
meaning  of  this  sudden  dislike  to  the  most  ex- 
tolled of  all  the  divinities  of  this  world  ?  " 

i^.  Hateful  money  !  hateful  money  ! 

£.  You  alarm  me.  I  hear  peace,  liberty,  and 
life  cried  down,  and  Brutus  went  so  far  even  as  to 
say,  "  Virtue  !  thou  art  but  a  name  !  "  But  what 
can  have  happened  ? 

jF.  Hateful  money  !  hateful  money  ! 

-5.  Come,  come,  exercise  a  little  philosophy. 
What  has  liappened  to  you  ?  Has  Croesus  been 
affecting  you  ?  Has  Jones  been  playing  you 
false  ?  or  has  Smith  been  libeling  you  in  the 
papers  ?  " 

i^.  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  Croesus;  my 
character,  by  its  insignificance,  is  safe  from  any 
slanders  of  Smith ;  and  as  to  Jones 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  175 

B.  Ah  !  now  I  have  it.  IIow  could  I  be  so 
blind  %  You,  too,  are  the  inventor  of  a  social  re- 
organization— of  the  F system,  in  fact.     Your 

society  is  to  be  more  perfect  than  that  of  Sparta, 
and,  therefore,  all  money  is  to  be  rigidly  banished 
from  it.  And  the  thing  that  troubles  you  is,  how 
to  persuade  your  people  to  throw  away  the  con- 
tents of  their  purses.  "What  would  you  have  ? 
This  is  the  rock  on  which  all  reorganizers  split. 
There  is  not  one  but  would  do  wonders,  if  he 
could  contrive  to  overcome  all  resisting  influences, 
and  if  all  mankind  would  consent  to  become  soft 
wax  in  his  fingers;  but  men  are  resolved  not  to 
be  soft  wax  ;  they  listen,  applaud,  or  reject  and — 
go  on  as  before. 

F,  Thank  heaven  I  am  still  free  from  this 
fashionable  mania.  Instead  of  inventing:  social 
laws,  I  am  studying  those  which  it  has  pleased 
Providence  to  invent,  and  I  am  delighted  to  find 
them  admirable  in  their  progressive  development. 
This  is  why  I  exclaim,  "Hateful  money !  hateful 
money ! " 

JB.  You  are  a  disciple  of  Froudhon,  then  ?  Well, 
there  is  a  very  simple  way  for  you  to  satisfy  your- 
self. Throw  your  purse  into  the  river,  only  re- 
serving a  small  draft  on  the  Bank  of  Exchange. 

F.  If  I  cry  out  against  money,  is  it  likely  I 
should  tolerate  its  deceitful  substitute  ? 


176  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

B.  Then  I  have  only  one  more  guess  to  make. 
You  are  a  new  Diogenes,  and  are  going  to  vic- 
timize me  with,  a  discourse  on  tJie  contempt  of 
riches. 

F.  Heaven  preserve  me  from  that !  For  riches, 
don't  you  see,  are  not  a  little  more  or  a  little  less 
money.  They  are  bread  for  the  hungry,  clothes 
for  the  naked,  fuel  to  warm  you,  oil  to  lengthen 
the  day,  a  career  open  to  your  son,  a  certain  por- 
tion for  your  daughter,  a  day  of  rest  after  fatigue, 
a  cordial  for  tlie  faint,  a  little  assistance  slipped 
itito  the  hand  of  a  poor  man,  a  shelter  from  the 
storm,  a  diversion  for  a  brain  worn  by  thought, 
the  incomparable  pleasure  of  making  those  happy 
who  are  dear  to  us.  Riches  are  instruction,  inde- 
pendence, dignity,  confidence,  charity;  they  are 
progress  and  civilization.  Riches  are  the  ad- 
mirable civilizing  result  of  two  admirable  agents, 
more  civilizing  even  than  riches  themselves — 
labor  and  exchange. 

B.  Well!  now  you  seem  to  be  singing  the 
praises  of  riches,  when,  a  moment  ago,  you  were 
loading  them  with  imprecations ! 

F.  Why,  don't  you  see  that  it  was  only  the 
whim  of  an  economist  ?  I  cry  out  against  money, 
just  because  everybody  confounds  it,  as  you  did 
just  now,  with  riches,  and  that  this  confusion  is 
the  cause  of  errors  and  calamities  without  number. 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  177 

I  cry  out  against  it  because  its  function  in  society 
is  not  understood,  and  very  difficult  to  explain.  I 
cry  out  against  it  because  it  jumbles  all  ideas, 
causes  the  means  to  be  taken  for  the  end,  the 
obstacle  for  the  cause,  the  alpha  for  the  omega  ; 
because  its  presence  in  the  world,  though  in  itself 
beneficial,  has,  nevertheless,  introduced  a  fatal 
notion,  a  perversion  of  pi-inciples,  a  contradictory 
theory,  which,  in  a  multitude  of  forms,  has  im- 
poverished mankind  and  deluged  the  earth  with 
blood.  I  cry  out  against  it,  because  I  feel  that 
I  am  incapable  of  contending  against  the  error 
to  which  it  has  given  birth,  otherwise  than  by  a 
long  and  fastidious  dissertation  to  which  no  one 
would  listen.  Oh  !  if  I  could  only  find  a  patient 
and  benevolent  listener ! 

B.  Well,  it  shall  not  be  said  that  for  want  of  a 
victim  you  remain  in  the  state  of  irritation  in 
which  you  now  are.  I  am  listening  ;  speak,  lec- 
ture, do  not  restrain  yourself  in  any  way. 

^.  You  promise  to  take  an  interest  ? 

B.  I  promise  to  have  patience. 

F.  That  is  not  much. 

B.  It  is  all  that  I  can  give.  Begin,  and  explain 
to  me,  at  first,  how  a  mistake  on  the  subject  of 
money,  if  mistake  there  be,  is  to  be  found  at  the 
root  of  all  economical  errors  ? 

F.  Well,  now,  is  it  possible  that  you  can  con- 


178  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

scientiouslj  assure  me  that  you  have  never  hap- 
pened to  confound  wealth  with  money  'i 

B,  I  don't  know  ;  but,  after  all,  what  would  be 
the  consequence  of -such  a  confusion? 

F.  Nothing  very  important.  An  error  in  your 
brain,  which  would  have  no  influence  over  your 
actions;  for  you  see  that,  with  respect  to  labor 
and  exchange,  although  there  are  as  many  opin- 
ions as  there  are  heads,  we  all  act  in  the  same 
way. 

B.  Just  as  we  walk  upon  the  same  principle, 
although  we  are  not  agreed  upon  the  theory  of 
equilibrium  and  gravitation. 

F.  Precisely.  A  person  who  argued  himself 
into  the  opinion  tliat  during  the  night  our  heads 
and  feet  changed  places,  might  write  very  fine 
books  upon  the  subject,  but  still  he  would  walk 
about  like  everybody  else. 

B.  So  I  think.  Nevertheless,  lie  would  soon 
suffer  the  penalty  of  being  too  much  of  a  logi- 
cian. 

F,  In  the  same  way,  a  man  would  die  of 
hunger,  who  having  decided  that  money  is  real 
wealth,  should  carry  out  the  idea  to  the  end. 
That  is  the  reason  that  this  theory  is  false,  for 
there  is  no  true  tlieory  but  such  as  results  from 
facts  themselves,  as  manifested  at  all  times,  and 
in  all  places. 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  179 

B,  I  can  understand,  that  practically,  and 
under  the  influence  of  personal  interest,  the  in- 
jurious effects  of  the  erroneous  action  would  tend 
to  correct  an  error.  But  if  .that  of  which  you 
speak  has  so  little  influence,  why  does  it  disturb 
you  so  much'^ 

F,  Because,  when  a  man,  instead  of  acting  for 
himself,  decides  for  others,  personal  interest,  that 
ever  watchful  and  sensible  sentinel,  is  no  longer 
]3resent  tO  cry  out,  ''  Stop  I  the  responsibility,  is 
misplaced."  It  is  Peter  who  is  deceived,  and 
John  suffers  ;  the  false  system  of  the  legislator 
necessarily  becomes  the  rule  of  action  of  whole 
populations.  And  observe  the  difference.  When 
you  have  money,  and  are  very  hungry,  whatever 
your  theory  about  money  may  be,  what  do  you  do  % 

B.  I  go  to  a  baker's  and  buy  some  bread. 

F,  You  do  not  hesitate  about  using  your 
money  ? 

B.  The  only  use  of  money  is  to  buy  what  one 
wants. 

F.  And  if  the  baker  should  happen  to  be 
thirsty,  what  does  he  do  % 

B.  He  goes  to  the  wine  merchant's,  and  buys 
wine  with  the  money  I  have  given  him. 

F.  What !  is  he  not  afraid  he  shall  ruin  himself? 

B.  The  real  ruin  would  be  to  go  without  eat- 
ing or  drinking. 


180  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

F.  And  everybody  in  tlie  world,  if  he  is  free, 
acts  in  the  same  manner? 

B.  Without  a  doubt.  Would  you  have  them 
die  of  hunger  for  the  sake  of  laying  by  pence  ? 

F.  So  far  from  it,  that  I  consider  they  act 
wisely,  and  I  only  wish  that  the  theory  was  noth- 
ing but  the  faithful  image  of  this  universal  prac- 
tice. But,  suppose  now,  that  you  were  the  legis- 
lator, the  absolute  king  of  a  vast  empire,  where 
there  were  no  gold  mines. 

B.  No  unpleasant  fiction. 

F.  Suppose,  again,  that  you  were  perfectly 
convinced  of  this,- — that  wealth  consists  solely 
and  exclusively  of  money,  to  what  conclusion 
would  you  come  ? 

B.  I  should  conclude  that  there  was  no  other 
means  for  me  to  enrich  my  people,  or  for  them  to 
enrich  themselves,  but  to  draw  away  the  money 
from  other  nations. 

F.  That  is  to  say,  to  impoverish  them.  The 
first  conclusion,  then,  to  which  you  would  arrive 
would  be  this, — a  nation  can  only  gain  when  an- 
other loses. 

B.  This  axiom  has  the  authority  of  Bacon  and 
Montaigne.* 


*  During  the,  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  this  theory 
was  almost  universally  accepted  in  Europe. 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  181 

F,  It  is  not  the  less  sorrowful  for  that,  for  it 
implies — that  progress  is  impossible.  Two  na- 
tions, no  more  than  two  men,  cannot  prosper  side 
bj  side. 

B.  It  would  seem  that  such  is  the  result  of  this 
principle. 

F,  And  as  all  men  are  ambitious  to  enrich 
themselves,  it  follows  that  all  are  desirous,  accord- 
ing to  a  law  of  Providence,  of  ruining  their  fel- 
low-creatures. 

B.  This  is  not  Christianity,  but  it  is  political 
econom}^ 

F.  Such  a  doctrine  is  detestable.  But,  to  con- 
tinue, I  have  made  you  an  absolute  king.  You 
must  not  be  satisfied  with  reasoning,  you  must 
act.  There  is  no  limit  to  your  power.  How 
would  you  treat  this  doctrine — wealth  is  money  ? 

B.  It  would  be  ray  endeavor  to  increase,  in- 
cessantly, among  my  people  the  quantity  of 
money. 

F.  But  there  are  no  mines  in  your  kingdom. 
How  would  you  set  about  it  ?  What  would  you 
do? 

B.  I  should  do  nothing :  I  should  merely  for- 
bid, on  pain  of  death,  tliat  a  single  dollar  should 
leave  the  country. 

F.  And  if  your  people  should  happen  to  be 
hungry  as  well  as  rich  ? 


183  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

B.  Kever  mind.  In  the  s^^stem  we  are  dis- 
cussing, to  allow  them  to  export  dollars,  would  be 
to  allow  them  to  impoverish  themselves. 

F.  So  that,  by  your  own  confession,  you  would 
force  them  to  act  upon  a  principle  equally  opposite 
to  that  upon  which  you  would  yourself  act  under 
similar  circumstances.     Why  so  ? 

B.  Just  because  my  own  hunger  touches  me, 
and  the  hunger  of  a  nation  does  not  touch  legis- 
lators. 

F.  Well,  I  can  tell  you  that  your  plan  would 
fail,  and  that  no  superintendence  would  be  suffi- 
ciently vigilant,  when  the  people  were  hungry,  to 
prevent  the  dollars  from  going  out  and  the  grain 
from  coming  in. 

B.  If  so,  this  plan,  whether  erroneous  or  not, 
would  effect  nothing;  it  would  do  neither  good 
nor  harm,  and  therefore  requires  no  further  con- 
sideration. 

F,  You  forget  that  you  are  a  legislator.  A 
legislator  must  not  be  disheartened  at  trifles, 
when  he  is  making  experiments  on  others. 
Tlie  , first  measure  not  having  succeeded,  you 
ought  to  take  some  other  means  of  attaining  your 
end. 

B.  AVhat  end  ? 

F.  You  must  have  a  bad  memory.  Why,  that 
of  increasing,  in  the  midst  of  your  people,  the 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  183 

quantity  of  money,  which  is  presumed  to  be  true 
wealth. 

B.  Ah!  to  be  sure;  I  beg  your  pardon.  But 
then  you  see,  as  they  say  of  music,  a  little  is 
enough ;  and  this  may  be  said,  I  think,  with  still 
more  reason,  of  political  economy.  I  must  con- 
sider.   But  really  I  don't  know  how  to  contrive 

F.  Ponder  it  well.  •  First,  I  would  have  you 
observe  that  your  first  plan  solved  the  problem 
only  negatively.  To  prevent  the  dollars  from  going 
out  of  the  country  is  the  way  to  prevent  the  wealth 
from  diminishing,  but  it  is  not  the  way  to  increase 
it. 

B.  Ah !  now  I  am  beginning  to  see  .  .  .  the 
grain  which  is  allowed  to  come  in  .  .  .  a  bright 
idea  strikes  me  .  .  .  the  contrivance  is  ingenious, 
the  means  infallible  ;  I  am  coming  to  it  now. 

¥.  Kow,  I,  in  turn,  must  ask  you — to  what  ? 

B.  Why,  to  a  means  of  increasing  the  quantity 
of  money. 

F.  How  would  you  set  about  it,  if  3^ou  please  ? 

B,  Is  it  not  evident  that  if  tlie  heap  of  money 
is  to  be  constantly  increasing,  the  first  condition 
is  that  none  must  be  taken  from  it  ? 

F.  Certainly. 

B,  And  the  second,  that  additions  must  con- 
stantly be  made  to  it  ? 

F,  To  be  sure. 


184  WHAT  IS  MONEY?  / 

B.  Then  the  problem  will  be  solved,  either 
negatively  or  positivel}^ ;  if  on  the  one  hand  I  pre- 
vent the  foreigner  from  taking  from  it,  and  on  the 
other  I  oblige  him  to  add  to  it. 

F.  Better  and  better. 

B.  And  for  this  there  must  be  two  simple  laws 
made,  in  which  money  will  not  even  be  mentioned. 
Bj  the  one,  my  snbjects  will  be  forbidden  to  buy 
anything  abroad ;  and  by  the  other,  they  will  be 
required  to  sell  a  great  deal. 

F,  A  well-advised  plan. 

B,  Is  it  new  ?  I  must  take  out  a  patent  for 
the  invention. 

F.  You  need  do  no  such  thing ;  you  have  been 
forestalled.     But  you  must  take  care  of  one  thing. 

B,  What  is  that? 

F.  I  have  made  you  an  absolute  king.  -I  un- 
derstand that  you  are  going  to  prevent  your  sub- 
jects from  buying  foreign  productions.  It  will  be 
enough  if  you  prevent  them  from  entering  the 
country.  Thirty  or  forty  thousand  custom-house 
officers  will  do  the  business. 

B.  It  would  be  rather  expensive.  But  what 
does  that  signify  ?  The  money  they  receive  will 
not  go  out  of  the  country. 

F,  True ;  and  in  this  system  it  is  the  grand 
point.  But  to  insure  a  sale  abroad,  how  would 
you  proceed  ? 


WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

B.  I  sliould  encourage  it  by  prizes,  obtained  by 
means  of  some. good  taxes  laid  upon  my  people. 

F.  In  this  case,  the  exporters,  constrained  by 
competition  among  themselves,  would  lower  their 
prices  in  proportion,  and  it  would  be  like  making 
a  present  to  the  foreigner  of  the  prizes  or  of  the 
taxes. 

B.  Still,  the  money  would  not  go  out  of  the 
country. 

F.  Of  course.  That  is  understood.  But  if 
your  system  is  beneficial,  the  governments  of  other 
countries  will  adopt  it.  They  will  make  similar 
plans  to  yours;  they  will  have  their  cnstom-house 
officers,  and  reject  your  productions ;  so  that  with 
them,  as  with  you,  the  heap  of  money  may  not  be 
diminished. 

B.  I  shall  have  an  army  and  force  their  barriers. 

F.  They  will  have  an  army  and  force  yours. 

B,  I  shall  arm  vessels,  make  conquests,  acquire 
colonies,  and  create  consumers  for  my  people, 
who  will  be  obliged  to  eat  our  corn  and  drink  our 
wine. 

F.  The  other  governments  will  do  the  same. 
They  will  dispute  your  conquests,  your  colonies, 
and  your  consumers ;  then  on  all  sides  there  will 
be  war,  and  all  will  be  uproar. 

B.  I  shall  raise  my  taxes,  and  increase  my 
custom-house  officers,  my  army,  and  my  navy. 


186  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

F.  The  others  will  do  the  same. 

B.  I  shall  redouble  my  exertions. 

F.  The  others  will  redouble  theirs.  In  the 
meantime,  we  have  no  proof  that  you  would  suc- 
ceed in  selling  to  a  great  extent. 

B.  It  is  but  too  true.  It  would  be  well  if 
the  commercial  efforts  would  neutralize  each 
other. 

F.  And  the  military  efforts  also.  And,  tell 
me,  are  not  these  custom-house  officers,  soldiers, 
and  vessels,  these  oppressive  taxes,  this  perpetual 
struggle  towards  an  impossible  result,  this  perma- 
nent state  of  open  or  secret  war  with  the  whole 
world,  are  they  not  the  logical  and  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  legislators  having  adopted  an  idea, 
which  you  admit  is  acted  upon  by  no  man  who  is 
his  own  master,  that  "  wealth  is  money ;  and  to 
increase  the  amount  of  money  is  to  increase 
wealth  % " 

B.  I  grant  it.  Either  the  axiom  is  true,  and 
then  the  legislator  ought  to  act  as  I  have  described, 
although  universal  war  should  be  the  consequence ; 
or  it  is  false ;  and  in  this  case  men,  in  destro^dng 
each  other,  only  ruin  themselves. 

F»  And,  remember,  tliat  before  you  became  a 
king,  this  same  axiom  had  led  you  by  a  logical 
process  to  the  following  maxims: — That  which 
one  gains,  another  loses.    The  profit  of  one  is  tho 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  187 


loss  of  the  other : — which  maxims  imply  an  un- 
avoidable antagonism  amongst  all  men. 

JB.  It  is  only  too  certain.  Whether  I  am  a 
philosopher  or  a  legislator,  whether  I  reason  or 
act  npon  the  principle  that  money  is  wealth,  I 
always  arrive  at  one  conclusion,  or  one  result : — 
universal  war.  It  is  well  that  you  pointed  out  the 
consequences  before  beginning  a  discussion  upon 
it ;  otherwise,  I  should  never  have  had  the  courage 
to  follow  you  to  the  end  of  3^our  economical  dis- 
sertation, for,  to  tell  you  the  truth,  it  is  not  much 
to  my  taste. 

F:  What  do  you  mean?  I  was  just  thinking 
of  it  when  jow  heard  me  grumbling  against 
money!  I  was  lamenting  that  my  countrymen 
have  not  the  courage  to  study  what  it  is  so  impor- 
tant that  they  should  know. 

B.  And  yet  the  consequences  are  frightful. 

F.  The  consequences!  As  yet  I  have' only 
mentioned  one.  I  might  have  told  you  of  others 
still  more  fatal. 

B.  You  make  my  hair  stand  on  end !  What 
other  evils  can  have  been  caused  to  mankind  by 
this  confusion  between  money  and  wealth  ? 

F,  It  would  take  me  a  long  time  to  enumerate 
them.  This  doctrine  is  one  of  a  very  numerous 
family.  The  eldest,  whose  acquaintance  we  have 
just  made,  is  called  the  j^roldhitive  system;  the 


188  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

next,  the  colonial  system  j  the  third,  hatred  of 
capital  /  the  last  and  worst,  paper  money. 

B,  What !  does  paper  money  proceed  from  the 
same  error  ? 

F.  Yes,  directly.  "When  legislators,  after  hav- 
ing ruined  men  by  war  and  taxes,  persevere  in 
their  idea,  they  say  to  themselves,  "  If  the  people 
suffer,  it  is  because  there  is  not  money  enough. 
We  must  make  some."  And  as  it  is  not  easy  to 
multiply  the  precious  metals,  especially  when  the 
pretended  resources  of  prohibition  have  been  ex- 
hausted, they  add,  "  We  will  make  iictitious  money, 
nothing  is  more  easy,  and  then  every  citizen  will 
have  his  pocket-book  full  of  it,  and  they  will  all 
be  rich." 

B.  In  fact,  this  proceeding  is  more  expeditious 
than  the  other,  and  then  it  does  not  lead  to  foreign 
war. 

F.  No,  but  it  leads  to  civil  disaster. 

B.  You  are  a  grumbler.  Make  haste  and  dive 
to  the  bottom  of  the  question.  I  am  quite  impa- 
tient, for  the  first  time,  to  know  if  money  (or  its 
sign)  is  wealth. 

F,  You  will  grant  that  men  do  not  satisfy  any 
of  their  wants  immediately  with  coined  dollars,  or 
dollar  bills.  If  they  are  hungry,  they  want  bread  ; 
if  naked,  clothing  ;  if  they  are  ill,  they  must  have 
remedies;  if  they  are  cold,  they  want  shelter  and 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  189 

fuel ;  if  they  would  learn,  tliey  must  have  books ;  if 
they  would  travel,  they  must  have  conveyances — 
and  so  on.  The  riches  of  a  country  consist  in  the 
abundance  and  proper  distribution  of  all  these 
things.  Hence  you  may  perceive  and  rejoice  at 
the  falseness  of  this  gloomy  maxim  of  Bacon's, 
"  What  one  people  gains,  another  necessarily  loses : " 
a  maxim  expressed  in  a  still  more  discouraging 
manner  by  Montaigne,  in  these  words:  "  The  pro- 
fit of  one  is  the  loss  of  another.''''  When  Shera, 
Ham,  and  Japhet  divided  amongst  themselves  the 
vast  solitudes  of  this  earth,  they  surely  might  each 
of  them  build,  drain,  sow,  reap,  and  obtain  im- 
proved lodging,  food  and  clothing,  and  better  in- 
struction, perfect  and  enrich  themselves — in  short, 
increase  their  enjoyments,  without  causing  a  nec- 
essary diminution  in  the  corresponding  enjoyments 
of  their  brothers.  It  is  the  same  with  two  nations. 
B.  There  is  no  doubt  that  two  nations,  the 
same  as  two  men,  unconnected  with  each  other, 
may,  by  working  more,  and  working  better,  pros- 
per at  the  same  time,  without  injuring  each  other. 
It  is  not  this  which  is  denied  by  the  axioms  of 
Montaigne  and  Bacon.  They  only  mean  to  say, 
that  in  the  transactions  which  take  place  between 
two  nations  or  two  men,  if  one  gains,  the  other 
must  lose.  And  this  is  self-evident,  as  exchange 
adds  nothing  by  itself  to  the  mass  of  those  useful 


190  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

tilings  of  wliicli  you  were  speaking ;  for  if,  after 
the  exchange,  one  of  -the  parties  is  found  to  have 
gained  something,  the  other  will,  of  course,  be 
found  to  have  lost  something. 

F.  You  have  formed  a  very  incomplete,  nay,  a 
false  idea  of  exchange.  If  Sliem  is  located  upon 
a  plain  which  is  fertile  in  corn,  Japliet  upon  a 
slope  adapted  for  growing  the  vine.  Ham  upon  a 
rich  pasturage — the  distinction  of  their  occupa- 
tions, far  from  hurting  any  of  them,  might  cause 
all  three  to  prosper  more.  It  must  be  so,  in  fact, 
for  the  distribution  of  labor,  introduced  by  ex- 
change, will  have  the  effect  of  increasing  the  mass 
of  corn,  wine,  and  meat  which  is  produced,  and 
which  is  to  be  shared.  How  can  it  be  otherwise, 
if  you  allow  liberty  in  these  transactions  ?  From 
the"  moment  that  any  one  of  the  brothers  should 
perceive  that  labor  in  company,  as  it  were,  was  a 
permanent  loss,  compared  to  solitary  labor,  he  would 
cease  to  exchange.  Exchange  brings  with  it  its 
claim  to  our  gratitude.  The  fact  of  its  being  ac- 
complished proves  that  it  is  a  good  thing. 

B,  But  Bacon's  axiom  is  true  in  the  case  of 
gold  and  silver.  If  we  admit  that  at  a  certain  mo- 
ment there  exists  in  the  world  a  given  quantity, 
it  is  perfectly  clear  that  one  purse  cannot  be  filled 
without  another  being  emptied. 

F.  And  if  gold  is  considered  to  be  riches,  the 


WHA.T  IS  MONEY?  191 

natural  conclusion  is,  that  displacements  of  fortune 
take  place  among  men,  but  no  general  progress. 
It  is  just  what  I  said  when  I  began.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  you  look  upon  an  abundance  of  useful 
things,  fit  for  satisfying  our  wants  and  our  tastes, 
as  true  riches,  you  will  see  that  simultaneous  pros- 
perity is  possible.  Money  serves  only  to  facilitate 
the  transmission  of  these  useful  things  from  one 
to  another,  which  may  be  done  equally  well  with 
an  ounce  of  rare  metal  like  gold,  with  a  pound  gf 
more  abundant  material  as  silver,  or  with  a  hun- 
dredweight of  still  more  abundant  metal,  as  copper. 
According  to  that,  if  a  country  like  the  United 
States  had  at  its  disposal  as  much  again  of  all 
these  useful  things,  its  people  would  be  twice  as 
rich,  although  the  quantity  of  money  remained 
the  same ;  but  it  would  not  be  the  same  if  there 
were  double  the  money,  for  in  that  case  the  amount 
of  useful  things  would  not  increase, 

B.  The  question  to  be  decided  is,  whether  the 
presence  of  a  greater  number  of  dollars  has  not 
the  effect,  pi'ecisely,  of  augmenting  the  sum  of 
useful  things  % 

F,  "What  connection  can  there  be  between 
these  two  terms?  Food,  clothing,  houses,  fuel, 
all  come  from  nature  and  from  labor,  from  more 
or  less  skillful  labor  exerted  upon  a  more  or  less 
liberal  nature. 


192  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

B.  Y"ou  are  forgetting  one  great  force,  which 
is — exchange.  If  jou  acknowledge  that  this  is  a 
force,  as  you  have  admitted  that  dollars  facilitate 
it,  you  must  also  allow  that  they  have  an  indirect 
power  of  production. 

F.  But  I  have  added,  that  a  small  quantity  of 
rare  metal  facilitates  transactions  as  much  as  a 
large  quantity  of  abundant  metal ;  whence  it  fol- 
lows, that  a  people  is  not  enriched  by  beingy<9rc^<^ 
to  give  up  useful  things  for  the  sake  of  having 
more  money. 

B.  Thus,  it  is  your  opinion  that  the  treasures 
discovered  in  California  will  not  increase  the 
wealth  of  the  world  % 

F.  I  do  not  believe  that,  on  the  whole,  they  will 
add  much  to  the  enjoyments,  to  the  real  satisfac- 
tions of  mankind.  If  the  Californian  gold  merely 
replaces  in  the  world  that  which  has  been  lost  and 
destroyed,  it  may  have  its  use.  If  it  increases  the 
amount  of  mone}^,  it  will  depreciate  it.  The  gold 
diggers  will  be  richer  than  they  would  have  been 
without  it.  But  those  in  whose  possession  the 
gold  is  at  the  moment  of  its  depreciation,  will  ob- 
tain a  smaller  gratification  for  the  same  amount.  I 
cannot  look  upon  this  as  an  increase,  but  as  a  dis- 
placement of  true  riches,  as  I  have  defined  them. 

B.  All  that  is  very  plausible.  But  you  will 
not  easily  convince  me  that  I  am  not  richer  (all 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  193 

other  things  being  equal)  if  I  have  two  dollars, 
than  if  I  had  only  one. 

F.  I  do  not  deny  it. 

B.  And  what  is  true  of  me  is  true  of  my 
neighbor,  and  of  the  neighbor  of  my  neighbor, 
and  so  on,  from  one  to  another,  all  over  the  coun- 
try. Therefore,  if  ev^ery  citizen  of  the  United 
States  has  more  dollars,  the  United  States  must 
be  more  rich. 

F.  And  here  3^ou  fall  into  the  common  mistake 
of  concluding  that  what  affects  one  affects  all,  and 
thus  confusing  the  individual  with  the  general 
interest. 

B.  Why,  what  can  be  more  conclusive  ?  "What 
is  true  of  one,  must  be  so  of  all.  What  are  all, 
but  a  collection  of  individuals  ?  You  might  as 
well  tell  me  that  every  American  could  suddenly 
grow  an  incli  taller,  without  the  average  height 
of  all  the  Americans  being  increased. 

F.  Your  reasoning  is  apparently  sound,  I 
grant  you,  and  that  is  why  the  allusion  it  conceals 
is  so  common.  However,  let  us  examine  it  a 
little.  Ten  persons  were  at  play.  For  greater 
ease,  they  had  adopted  the  plan  of  each  taking  ten 
counters,  and  against  these  they  each  placed  a 
hundred  dollars  under  a  candlestick,  so  that  each 
counter  corresponded  to  ten  dollars.  After  the 
game  the  winnings  were  adjusted,  and  the  players 
9 


194  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

drew  from  tlie  candlestick  as  many  ten  dollars  as 
would  represent  the  number  of  counters.  Seeing 
this,  one  of  them,  a  great  arithmetician  perhaps, 
but  an  indifferent  reason er,  said  :  "  Gentlemen, 
experience  invariably  teaches  me  that,  at  the  end 
of  the  game,  I  find  myself  a  gainer  in  proportion 
to  the  number  of  my  counters.  Have  you  not 
observed  the  same  with  regard  to  yourselves  ? 
Thus,  what  is  true  of  me  must  be  true  of  each  of 
you,  and  wliat  is  true  of  each  must  he  true  of  all. 
We  should,  therefore,  all  of  us  gain  more,  at  the 
end  of  the  game,  if  we  all  had  more  counters. 
Kow,  nothing  can  be  easier ;  we  have  only  to  dis- 
tribute twice  the  number  of  counters."  This  was 
done ;  but  when  the  game  was  finished,  and  they 
came  to  adjust  the  winnings,  it  was  found  that  the 
one  ^loueand  under  the  candlestick  had  not  been 
miraculously  multiplied,  according  to  the  general 
expectation.  They  had  to  be  divided  accordingly, 
and  the  only  result  obtained  (chimerical  enough) 
was  this ; — every  one  had,  it  is  true,  his  double 
number  of  counters,  but  every  counter,  instead  of 
corresponding  to  ten  dollars,  only  represented  j'?^^. 
Tims  it  was  clearly  shown  that  what  is  true  of 
each  is  not  always  true  of  all. 

B.  I  see ;  you  are  supposing  a  general  increase 
of  counters,  without  a  corresponding  increase  of 
tlie  sum  placed  under  the  candlestick. 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  195 

F.  And  you  are  supposing  a  general  increase  of 
dollars,  without  a  corresponding  increase  of  tilings, 
the  exchange  of  which  is  facilitated  bj  these  dol- 
lars. 

B.  Do  you  compare  the  dollars  to  counters  ? 

F,  In  any  other  point  of  view,  certainly  not ; 
but  in  the  case  you  place  before  me,  and  which  I 
have  to  argue  against,  I  do.  Kemark  one  thing. 
In  order  that  there  be  a  general  increase  of  dollars 
in  a  country,  this  country  must  have  mines,  or  its 
commerce  must  be  such  as  to  give  useful  things 
in  exchange  for  money.  Apart  from  these  two 
circumstances,  a  universal  increase  is  impossible, 
the  dollars  only,  changing  hands ;  and  in  this  case, 
although  it  may  be  very  true  that  each  one,  taken 
individually,  is  richer  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  dollars  that  he  has,  we  cannot  draw  the  infer- 
ence which  you  drew  just  now,  because  a  dollar 
more  in  one  purse  implies  necessarily  a  dollar  less 
in  some  other.  It  is  the  same  as  with  your  com- 
parison of  the  middle  height.  If  each  of  us  grew 
only  at  the  expense  of  others,  it  would  be  very 
true  of  each,  taken  individually,  that  he  would  be 
a  taller  man  if  he  had  the  chance,  but  this  would 
never  be  true  of  the  Avhole  taken  collectively. 

B,  Be  it  so :  but,  in  the  two  suppositions  that 
you  have  made,  the  increase  is  real,  and  you  must 
allow  that  I  am  right. 


196  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

F.  To  a  certain  point,  gold  and  silver  have  a 
value.  To  obtain  this  value,  men  consent  to  give 
other  useful  things  which  have  a  value  also. 
When,  therefore,  there  are  mines  in  a  country,  if 
that  country  obtains  from  them  sufficient  gold  to 
purchase  a  useful  thing  from  abroad — a  locomo- 
tive, for  instance — it  enriches  itself  with  all  the 
enjoyments  which  a  locomotive  can  procure,  ex- 
actly as  if  the  machine  had  been  made  at  home. 
The  question  is,  whether  it  spends  more  efforts  in 
the  former  proceeding  than  in  the  latter?  For  if 
it  did  not  export  this  gold,  it  would  depreciate, 
and  something  worse  would  happen  than  what 
did  sometimes  happen  in  California  and  in 
Australia,  for  there,  at  least,  the  precious  metals 
are  used  to  buy  useful  things  made  elsewhere. 
Nevertheless,  there  is  still  a  danger  that  they  may- 
starve  on  heaps  of  gold  ;  as  it  would  be  if  the  law 
prohibited  the  exportation  of  gold.  As  to  the 
second  supposition — that  of  the  gold  which  we 
obtain  by"  trade :  it  is  an  advantage,  or  the  reverse, 
according  as  the  country  stands  more  or  less  in 
need  of  it,  compared  to  its  wants  of  the  useful 
things  which  must  be  given  up  in  ordfer  to  obtain 
it.  It  is  not  for  the  law  to  judge  of  this,  but  for 
tliose  who  are  concerned  in  it ;  for  if  the  law 
should  start  upon  this  principle,  that  gold  is  pre- 
ferable to  useful  things,  whatever  may  be  their 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  197 

value,  and  if  it  should  act  effectually  in  this  sense, 
it  would  tend  to  put  every  country  adopting  the 
law  in  the  curious  position  of  having  a  great  deal 
of  cash  to  spend,  and  nothing  to  buy.  It  is  the 
very  same  system  wbich  is  represented  by  Midas, 
who  turned  every  tiling  he  touched  into  gold,  and 
was  in  consequence  in  danger  of  dying  of  starva- 
tion. 

B.  The  gold  wliich  is  tViported  implies  that  a 
useful  thing  is  ^a?ported,  and  in  this  respect  there 
is  a  satisfaction  withdrawn  from  the  country. 
But  is  there  not  a  corresponding  benefit  ?  And 
will  not  this  gold  be  the  source  of  a  number  of 
new  satisfactions,  by  circulating  from  hand  to 
hand,  and  inciting  to  labor  and  industry,  until  at 
length  it  leaves  the  country  in  its  turn,  and 
causes  the  importation  of  some  useful  thing  ? 

F,  Now  you  have  come  to  the  heart  of  the 
question.  Is  it  true  that  a  dollar  is  the  principle 
which  causes  the  production  of  all  the  objects 
whose  exchange  it  facilitates?  It  is  very  clear 
that  a  piece  of  coined  gold  or  silver  stamped  as  a 
dollar  is  only  worth  a  dollar ;  but  we  are  led  to 
believe  that  this  value  has  a  particular  character : 
that  it  is  not  consumed  like  other  things,  or  that 
it  is  exhausted  very  gradually;  that  it  renews 
itself,  as  it  were,  in  each  transaction  ;  and  that, 
finally  tliis  particular   dollar  has  been  worth  a 


198  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

dollar,  as  many  times  as  it  lias  accomplished  trans- 
actions— that  it  is  of  itself  worth  all  the  things 
for  which  it  has  been  snccessively  exchanged ; 
and  this  is  believed,  becanse  it  is  supposed  that 
without  this  dollar  these  things  would  never  have 
been  produced.  It  is  said  the  shoemaker  would 
have  sold  fewer  shoes,  consequently  lie  would 
have  bought  less  of  the  butcher ;  the  butcher 
would  not  have  gone  so  often  to  the  grocer,  the 
grocer  to  the  doctor,  the  doctor  to  the  lawyer, 
and  so  on. 

B.  !N"o  one  can  dispute  that. 

F.  This  is  the  time,  then,  to  analyze  the  true 
function  of  money,  independently  of  mines  and 
importations.  You  have  a  dollar.  What  does  it 
imply  in  your  hands  %  It  is,  as  it  were,  the  wit- 
ness and  proof  that  you  have,  at  some  time  or 
other,  performed  some  labor,  which,  instead  of 
turning  to  your  advantage,  you  have  bestowed 
upon  society  as  represented  by  the  person  of  your 
client  (employer  or  debtor).  This  coin  testifies 
that  3'ou  have  performed  a  service  for  society,  and, 
moreover,  it  shows  the  value  of  it.  It  bears 
witness,  besides,  that  you  have  not  yet  ob- 
tained from  society  a  real  equivalent  service,  to 
which  you  have  a  right.  To  place  you  in  a  con- 
dition to  exercise  this  right,  at  the  time  and  in  the 
manner  you   please,  society,  as  represented   by 


WHAT  IS   MONEY?  199 

your  client,  has  given  you  an  acknowledgment, 
a  title,  a  privilege  from  the  republic,  a  counter,  a 
title  to  a  dollar's  worth  of  property  in  fact,  wliich 
only  differs  from  executive  titles  by  bearing 
its  value  in  itself ;  and  if  you  are  able  to  read" 
with  your  mind's  eye  the  inscriptions  stamped 
upon  it  you  will  distinctly  decipher  these  words : 
— ''Pay  the  hearer  a  service  equivalent  to  what 
he  has  rendered  to  society^  the  value  received 
heing  shown,  proved,  and  measured  hy  that  which 
is  represented  hy  meP  ITow,  you  give  up  your 
dollar  to  me.  Either  my  title  to  it  is  gratuitous, 
or  it  is  a  claim.  If  you  give  it  me  as  payment 
for  a  service,  the  following  is  the  result : — your 
account  with  society  for  real  satisfactions  is  regu- 
lated, balanced,  and  closed.  You  had  rendered  it 
a  service  for  a  dollar,  you  now  restore  the  dollar 
for  a  service ;  as  far  as  you  are  concerned  you  are 
clear.  As  for  me,  I  am  just  in  the  position  in 
which  you  were  just  now.  It  is  I  who  am  now 
in  advance  to  society  for  the  service  which  I  have 
just  rendered  it  in  your  person.  I  am  become  its 
creditor  for  the  value  of  the  labor  which  I  have 
performed  for  you,  and  which  I  might  devote  to 
myself.  It  is  into  my  hands,  then,  that  the  title 
of  this  credit — the  proof  of  this  social  debt — 
ought  to  pass.  You  cannot  say  that  I  am  any 
richer  j  if  I  am  entitled  to  receive,  it  is  because 


200  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

I  have  given.  Still  less  can  you  say  tliat  society 
is  a  dollar  richer,  because  one  of  its  members  has  a 
dollar  more,  and  another  has  one  less.  For  if  you 
let  me  have  this  dollar  gratis,  it  is  certain  that  I 
shall  be  so  much  the  richer,  but  you  will  be  so 
much  tlie  poorer  for  it ;  and  the  social  fortune, 
taken  in  a  mass,  will  have  undergone  no  change, 
because  as  I  have  already  said,  this  fortune  con- 
sists in  real  services,  in  effective  satisfactions,  in 
useful  thins^s.  You  were  a  creditor  to  societv ; 
you  made  me  a  substitute  to  your  rights,  and  it 
signifies  little  to  society,  whicli  owes  a  service, 
whether  it  pays  the  debt  to  you  or  to  me.  This 
is  discharged  as  soon  as  the  bearer  of  the  claim  is 
paid. 

B.  But  if  we  all  had  a  great  number  of  dollars 
we  should  obtain  from  society  many  services. 
Would  not  that  he  very  desii-able  ? 

F.  You  forget  that  in  the  process  which  I  have 
described,  and  which  is  a  picture  of  the  reality, 
w^e  only  obtain  services  from  society  because  we 
have  bestowed  some  upon  it.  "Whoever  speaks  of 
a  service^  speaks,  at  the  same  time  of  a  service 
received  and  returned^  for  these  two  terms  im- 
ply each  otlier,  so  that  the  one  must  always 
be  balanced  by  the  other.  It  is  impossible  for 
society  to  render  more  services  than  it  receives, 
and  yet  a  belief  to  the  contrary  is  the  chimera 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  .201 

.  which  is  being  pursued  by  means  of  the  multipli- 
cation of  coins,  of  paper  money,  etc. 

B.  All  that  appears  very  reasonable  in  theory, 
but  in  practice  I  cannot  help  thinking,  when  I 
see  how  things  go,  that  if,  by  some  fortunate  cir- 
cumstance, the  number  of  dollars  could  be  multi- 
plied in  such  a  way  that  each  of  us  could  see  his 
little  property  doubled,  we  should  all  be  more  at 
our  ease ;  we  should  all  make  more  purchases, 
and  trade  would  receive  a  powerful  stimulus. 

F.  More  purchases  !  and  what  should  we  buy  % 
Doubtless,  useful  articles — things  likely  to  pro- 
cure for  us  substantial  gratification — such  as  pro- 
visions, stuffs,  houses,  books,  pictures.  You 
should  begin,  then,  by  proving  that  all  these 
things  create  themselves ;  you  must  suppose  the 
Mint  melting  ingots  of  gold  which  have  fallen 
from  the  moon ;  or  that  the  printing  presses  be 
put  in  action  at  the  Treasury  Department ;  for 
you  cannot  reasonably  think  that  if  the  quantity 
of  corn,  cloth,  ships,  hats,  and  shoes  remains  the 
same,  the  share  of  each  of  us  can  be  greater, 
because  we  each  go  to  market  with  a  greater 
amount  of  real  or  fictitious  money.  Kemember 
the  players.  In  the  social  order  the  useful  things 
are  what  the  workers  place  under  the  candlestick, 
and  the  dollars  which  circulate  from  hand  to 
hand  are   the   counters.      If  you   multiply   the 


202  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

dollars  without  multiplying  the  useful  things,  the 
only  result  will  be  that  more  dollars  will  be 
required  for  each  exchange,  just  as  the  players 
required  more  counters  for  each  deposit.  You 
have  the  proof  of  this  in  what  passes  for  gold, 
silver,  and  copper.  Why  does  the  same  exchange 
require  more  copper  than  silver,  more  silver  than 
gold?  Is  it  not  because  these  metals  are  dis- 
tributed in  the  world  in  different  proportions? 
"What  reason  have  you  to  suppose  that  if  gold 
were  suddenly  to  become  as  abundant  as  silver,  it 
would  not  require  as  much  of  one  as  of  the  other 
to  buy  a  house  ? 

B.  You  ma}^  be  right,  but  I  should  prefer  your 
being  wrong.  In  the  midst  of  the  sufferings 
which  surround  us,  so  distressing  in  themselves, 
and  so  dangerous  in  their  consequences,  1  have 
found  some  consolation  in  thinking  that  tliere  was 
an  easy  method  of  making  all  the  members  of  the 
community  happy. 

F.  Even  if  gold  and  silver  were  tnie  riches,  it 
would  be  no  easy  matter  to  increase  the  amount 
of  them  in  a  country  where  there  are  no  mines. 

B,  No,  but  it  is  easy  to  substitute  something 
else.  I  agree  with  you  that  gold  and  silver  can 
do  but  little  service,  except  as  a  mere  means  of 
exchange.  It  is  the  same  with  paper  money, 
bank-noteSj  ^tc.     Then,  if  we  had  all  of  us  plenty 


WHAT?  IS  MONEY?  203 

of  the  latter,  which  it  is  so  easy  to  create,  we 
might  all  buy  a  great  deal,  and  should  want  for 
nothing."^  Your  cruel  theory  dissipates  hopes, 
illusions,  if  you  will,  whose  principle  is  assuredly 
very  philanthropic. 

F.  Yes,  like  all  other  barren  dreams  formed  to 
promote  universal  felicity.     The  extreme  facility 


*  Stated  in  the  abstract,  these  views,  which  M.  Bastiat 
causes  his  imaginary  advocate  of  the  issue  and  use  of  irre- 
deemable paper  money  to  express,  seem  so  absurd,  that  one 
reading  involuntarily  asks  himself  :  "  Do  people  in  actual 
life,  holding  important  positions  of  trust  and  influence  really 
ever  thus  talk  and  believe?"  To  this  the  answer,  unfor- 
tunately, must  be  in  the  affirmative.  The  legislative  history 
of  all  countries  is  full  of  examples  of  such  utterances  ;  and 
that  of  the  United  States,  especially,  abounds  with  them, 
Pelatiah  Webster,  in  his  history  of  "  Continental  Money," 
tells  us  that  when  the  subject  of  increased  taxation  for  the 
support  of  the  war  was  under  consideration  by  the  Continen- 
tal Congress,  a  member  arose  and  indignantly  asked,  *'  if  he 
was  expected  to  help  tax  people,  when  they  could  go  to  the 
printing-office  and  get  money  by  the  cart  load." 

During  the  debates  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in 
1875,  the  Hon.  0.  P.  Morton,  a  senator  from  Indiana,  a  man 
whom  no  small  number  of  people  have  thought  worthy  of 
being  called  to  the  Executive  chair  of  the  nation,  authorita- 
tively laid  down  this  proposition  :  "  That  an  abundance  of 
money"  (meaning  irredeemable  paper  money)  "  does  produce 
enterprise,  prosperity,  and  progress;  that  when  money  was 
plentiful  interest  would  be  lower,"  just  as  when  horses  and 
hogs  are  abundant,  horses  and  hogs  are  cheap.    The  trouble 


204  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

of  the  means  Avhich  you  recommend  is  quite  suf- 
ficient to  expose  its  hollowness.  Do  you  believe 
that  if  it  were  merely  needful  to  print  bank-notes 
in  order  to  satisfy  all  our  wants,  our  tastes,  and 
desires,  that  mankind  would  have  been  contented 
to  go  on  till  now  without  having  recourse  to  this 
plan?  I  agree  with  you  that  the  discovery  is 
tempting.  It  would  immediately  banish  from  the 
world,  not  only  plunder,  in  its  diversified  and  de- 
plorable forms,  but  even  labor  itself,  except  in  the 
Il^ational  Printing  Bureau.  But  v/e  have  yet  to 
learn  how  greenbacks  are  to  purchase  houses, 
which  no  one  would  have  built ;  corn,  which  no 
one  would  have  raised;  stuffs,  which  no  one 
would  have  taken  the  trouble  to  weave. 

B,  One  thing  strikes  me  in  your  argument. 
Tou  say  yourself  that  if  there  is  no  gain,  at  any 
rate  there  is  no  loss  in  multiplying  the  instrument 
of  exchange,  as  is  seen  by  the  instance  of  the 
players,  who  were  quits  by  a  very  mild  deception. 
AVhy,  then,  refuse  the  philosopher's  stone,  which 


here  was  that  this  senator  had  not  suflBciently  comprehended 
the  a,  b,  c's  of  finance,  to  appreciate  the  difference  between 
capital  and  currency ;  and  in  the  simplicity  of  his  heart  im 
agined  that  it  was  all  the  same  whether  we  had  pictures  of 
horses,  hogs,  and  money,  or  real  horses,  hogs,  and  money, 
which  represent,  and  are  only  produced  by  labor. — Robinson 
Crusoe's  Money,  p.  110. 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  205 

would  teacli  ns  the  secret  of  changing  base  mate- 
rial into  gold,  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  converting 
paper  into  money  ?  Are  you  so  blindly  wedded  to 
your  logic,  that  you  would  refuse  to  try  an  experi- 
ment where  there  can  be  no  risk  ?  If  you  are  mis- 
taken, you  are  depriving  the  nation,  as  your  nu- 
merous adversaries  believe,  of  an  immense  advan- 
tage. If  the  error  is  on  their  side,  no  harm  can 
result,  as  you  yourself  say,  beyond  the  failure  of  a 
hope.  The  measure,  excellent  in  their  opinion, 
in  yours  is  merely  negative.  Let  it  be  tried, 
then,  since  the  worst  which  can  happen  is  not  the 
realization  of  an  evil,  but  the  non-realization  of  a 
benefit. 

F,  In  the  first  place,  the  failure  of  a  hope  is  a 
very  great  misfortune  to  any  people.  It  is  also 
very  undesirable  that  the  government  should 
announce  the  abolition  of  several  taxes  on  the 
faith  of  a  resource  which  must  infallibly  fail. 
Nevertheless,  your  remark  would  deserve  some 
consideration,  if,  after  the  issue  of  paper  money 
and  its  depreciation,  the  equilibrium  of  values 
should  instantly  and  simultaneously  take  place  in 
all  things  and  in  every  part  of  the  country.  The 
measure  would  tend,  as  in  my  example  of  the 
players,  to  a  universal  mystification,  in  respect  to 
which  the  best  thing  we  could  do  would  be  to 
look  at  one  another  and  laugh.     But  this  is  not 


206  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

in  the  course  of  events.  The  experiment  has 
been  made,  and  every  time  a  government — be  it 
King  or  Congress — lias  altered  the  money    .    .    . 

B.  Who  says  anything  about  altering  the  money? 

F.  Why,  to  force  people  to  take  in  payment 
scraps  of  paper  which  have  been  officially  baptized 
dollars^  or  to  force  them  to  receive,  as  weighing 
an  ounce,  a  piece  of  silver  which  weighs  only  half 
an  ounce,  but  which  has  been  officially  named  a 
dollar^  is  the  same  thing,  if  not  w^orse ;  and  all 
the  reasoning  which  can  be  made  in  favor  of  pa- 
per money  has  been  made  in  favor  of  legal  false- 
coined  money.  Certainly,  looking  at  it,  as  you 
did  just  now,  and  as  you  appear  to  be  doing  still, 
if  it  is  believed  that  to  multiply  the  instruments 
of  exchange  is  to  multiply  the  exchanges  them- 
selves as  well  as  the  things  exchanged,  it  might 
very  reasonably  be  thought  that  the  most  simple 
means  was  to  mechanically  divide  the  coined  dol- 
lar, and  to  cause  the  law  to  give  to  the  half  the 
name  and  value  of  the  whole.  Well,  in  both  cases, 
depreciation  is  inevitable.  I  think  I  have  told 
you  the  cause.  I  must  also  inform  you,  that  this 
depreciation,  wdiich,  with  paper,  might  go  on 
till  it  came  to  nothing,  is  effected  by  continu- 
ally making  dupes;  and  of  these,  poor  people, 
simple  persons,  workmen  and  countrymen  are  the 
chief. 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  207 

B.  I  see ;  but  stop  a  little.  This  dose  of  Eco- 
nomy is  i-ather  too  strong  for  once. 

F.  Be  it  so.  We  are  agreed,  then,  upon  this 
point — that  wealth  is  the  mass  of  useful  things 
which  we  produce  by  labor ;  or,  still  better,  the 
result  of  all  the  efforts  which  we  make  for  the 
satisfaction  of  our  wants  and  tastes.  These 
useful  things  are  exchanged  for  each  other,  accord- 
ing to  the  convenience  of  those  to  whom  they  be- 
long. There  are  two  forms  in  these  transactions ; 
one  is  called  barter :  in  this  case  a  service  is  rendered 
for  the  sake  of  receiving  an  equivalent  service  im- 
mediately. In  this  form  transactions  would  bo 
exceedingly  limited.  In  order  that  they  may  be 
multiplied,  and  accomplished  independently  of 
time  and  space  amongst  persons  unknown  to  each 
other,  and  by  infinite  fractions,  an  intermediate 
agent  has  been  necessary — this  is  money.  It  gives 
occasion  for  e?tchange,  which  is  nothing  else  but 
a  complicated  bargain.  Tliis  is  what  has  to  be 
remarked  and  understood.  Exchange  decomposes 
itself  into  two  bargains,  into  two  departments, 
sale  and  purchase— the  reunion  of  which  is  needed 
to  complete  it.  You  sell  a  service,  and  receive  a 
dolhir — then,  with  this  dollar  you  hiry  a  service. 
Then  only  is  the  bargain  complete ;  it  is  not  till 
then  that  your  effort  has  been*folloWed  by  a  real 
satisfaction.     Evidently  you  only  work  to  satisfy 


208  WHAT  IS  ]!iIONEY? 

the  wants  of  others,  that  others  may  work  to 
satisfy  yours.  So  long  as  you  have  only  the  dol- 
lar which  has  been  given  you  for  your  work,  you 
are  only  entitled  to  claim  the  work  of  another 
person.  "When  you  have  done  so,  the  economical 
evglution  will  be  accomplished  as  far  as  you  are 
concerned,  since  you  will  then  only  have  obtained, 
])y  a  real  satisfaction,  the  true  reward  for  your 
trouble.  The  idea  of  a  bargain  implies  a  service 
rendered,  and  a  service  received.  Why  should  it 
not  be  tlie  same  with  exchange,  which  is  merely 
a  bargain  in  two  parts  ?  And  here  there  are  two 
observations  to  be  made.  First — It  is  a  very  un- 
important circumstance  whether  there  be  much 
or  little  money  in  the  world.  If  there  is  much, 
]nuch  is  required  ;  if  there  is  little,  little  is  wanted, 
for  each  transaction:  that  is  all..  The  second  ob- 
servation is  this  : — Because  it  is  seen  that  money 
always  reappears  in  every  exchange,  it  has  come 
to  be  regarded  as  the  sign  and  the  measure  of  the 
things  exchanged. 

B.  Will  you  still  deny  that  money  is  the  sign 
of  the -useful  things  of  which  you  speak? 

F.  A  half -eagle  is  no  more  the  sign  of  a  barrel  of 
flour,  than  a  barrel  of  flour  is  the  sign  of  a  half -eagle. 

B.  What  harm  is  there  in  looking  at  money  as 
the  sign  of  wealtli  ? 

F.  The  inconvenience  is  this — it  leads  to  the 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  209 

idea  that  we  have  only  to  increase  the  sign,  in 
order  to  increase  the  things  signified ;  and  we  are 
in  danger  of  adopting  all  tlie  false  measures  which 
you  took  when  I  made  you  an  absolute  king.  We 
should  go  still  further.  Just  as  in  money  we  see 
the  sign  of  wealth,  we  see  also  in  paper  money 
the  sign  of  money ;  and  thence  conclude  that  there 
is  a  very  easy  and  simple  method  of  procuring  for 
everybody  the  pleasures  of  fortune. 

B.  But  you  will  not  go  so  far  as  to  dispute  that 
money  is  the  measure  of  values  ? 

F.  Yes,  certainly,  I  do  go  as  far  as  that,  for 
that  is  precisely  where  the  illusion  lies.  It  has 
become  customary  to  refer  the  value  of  everything 
to  that  of  money.  It  is  said,  this  is  worth  five, 
ten,  or  twenty  dollars,  as  we  say  this  loeighs  five, 
ten,  or  twenty  grains;  this  measures  five,  ten,  or 
twenty  yards ;  this  ground  contains  five,  ten,  or 
twenty  acres ;  and  hence  it  has  been  concluded 
that  money  is  the  measure  of  values. 

B.  Well,  it  appears  as  if  it  was  so. 

F,  Yes,  it  appears  so,  and  it  is  this  appearance 
I  complain  of,  and  not  of  the  reality.  A  measure 
of  length,  size,  surface,  is  a  quantity  agreed  upon, 
and  unchangeable.  It  is  not  so  with  the  value  6f 
gold  and  silver.  This  varies  as  much  as  that  of 
corn,  wine,  cloth,  or  labor,  and  from  the  same 
causes,  for  it  has  the  same  source  and  obeys  the 


210  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

same  laws.  Gold  is  brought  within  our  reach,  just 
like  iron,  by  tlie  labor  of  miners,  the  advances  of 
capitalists,  and  the  combination  of  merchants  and 
seamen.  It  costs  more  or  less,  according  to  the 
expense  of  its  production,  according  to  whether 
there  is  much  or  little  in  the  market,  and  whether 
it  is  much  or  little  in  request ;  in  a  word,  it  under- 
goes the  fluctuations  of  all  other  human  produc- 
tions. But  one  circumstance  is  singular,  and  gives 
rise  to  many  mistakes.  When  the  value  of  money 
varies,  the  variation  is  attributed  by  language  to 
the  other  productions  for  which  it  is  exchanged. 
Thus,  let  us  suppose  that  all  the  circumstances  re- 
lative to  gold  remain  the  s^me,  and  that  the  corn 
harvest  has  failed.  The  price  of  corn  will  rise. 
It  will  be  said,  "The  barrel  of  flour,  which  was 
worth  five  dollars,  is  now  worth  eight ; "  and  this 
will  be  correct,  for  it  is  tlie  value  of  the  flour  which 
■has  varied,  and  language  agrees  with  the  fact. 
But  let  us  reverse  the  supposition:  let  us  suppose 
that  all  the  circumstances  relative  to  flour  remain 
the  same,  and  that  half  of  all  tlie  gold  in  existence 
is  swallowed  up ;  this  time  it  is  the  price  of  gold 
which  will  rise.  It  would  seem  that  we  ought  to 
say,- "This  half-eagle,  which  i^?<^5  worth  ten  dol- 
lars, is  now  worth  twenty."  Now,  do  you  know 
how  this  is  expressed  ?  Just  as  if  it  was  the  other 
objects  of  comparison  which  had  fallen  in  price, 


211 


it  is  said — "  Flour,  wliicli  was  worth  ten  dollars,  is 
now  only  worth  five." 

B.  It  all  comes  to  the  same  thing  in  the  end. 

F.  No  doubt ;  but  only  think  what  distur- 
bances, what  cheatings  are  produced  in  exchanges, 
when  the  value  of  the  medium  varies,  without 
our  becoming  aware  of  it  by  a  change  in  the  name. 
Old  pieces  are  issued,  or  notes  bearing  the  name 
of  five  dollars,  and  which  will  bear  that  name 
through  every  subsequent  depreciation.  The 
value  will  be  reduced  a  quarter,  a  half,  but  they 
will  still  be  called  pieces  or  notes  of  fioe  dollars. 
Clever  persons  will  take  care  not  to  part  with 
their  goods  unless  for  a  larger  number  of  notes — 
in  other  words,  they  will  ask  ten  dollars  for  what 
they  would  formerly  have  sold  for  five;  but 
simple  persons  will  be  taken  in.  Many  years 
must  pass  before  all  the  values  will  find  their 
proper  level.  Under  the  influence  of  ignorance 
and  custom^  the  daj^'s  pay  of  a  country  laborer 
will  remain  for  a  long  time  at  a  dollar  wdiile  the 
salable  price  of  all  the  articles  of  consumption 
around  him  will  be  rising.  He  will  sink  into  des- 
titution without  being  able  to  discover  the  cause. 
In  short,  since  you  wish  me  to  finish,  I  must  beg 
you,  before  we  separate,  to  fix  your  whole  atten- 
tion upon  this  essential  point: — When  once  false 
money  (under  whatever  form  it  may  take)  is  put 


212  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

into  circulation,  depreciation  will  ensue,  and 
manifest  itself  by  the  universal  rise  of  every 
thing  wliigli  is  capable  of  being  sold.  But  this 
rise  in  prices  is  not  instantaneous  and  equal  for 
all  things.  Sharp  men,  brokers,  and  men  of 
business,  will  not  suffer  by  it ;  for  it  is  their  trade 
to  watch  the  fluctuations  of  prices,  to  observe  the 
cause,  and  even  to  speculate  upon  it.  But  little 
tradesmen,  countrymen,  and  workmen  will  bear 
the  whole  weight  of  it.  The  rich  man  is  not  any 
the  richer  for  it,  but  the  poor  man  becomes 
poorer  by  it.  Therefore,  expedients  of  this  kind 
have  the  effect  of  increasing  the  distance  which 
separates  wealth  from  poverty,  of  paralyzing  the 
social  tendencies  which  are  incessantly  bringing 
men  to  the  same  level,  and  it  will  require  centuries 
for  the  suffering  classes  to  regain  the  ground 
which  they  have  lost  in  their  advance  towards 
equality  of  condition.^ 


*  Although  to  all  who  have  investigated  the  subject  the 
evidence  is  conclusive  that  an  irredeemable  fluctuating  paper 
money  is  always  made  an  agency  for  taxing  with  special 
severity  all  that  class  of  consumers  who  live  on  fixed 
incomes,  salaries,  and  wages,  it  has,  nevertheless,  always 
been  a  somewhat  difficult  matter  to  find  illustrations  of  the 
fact  so  clear  and  simple  as  to  carry  conviction  by  presenta- 
tion that  it  does  thus  act  to  the  classes  most  interested. 
\%th  a  view  of  obtaining  such  an  illustration,  application 


WRAT  IS  MONEY?  213 

B.  Good  morning;  I  shall  go  and  meditate 
upon  the  lecture  you  have  been  giving  me. 

J^.  Have  you  finished  your  own  dissertation  ? 
As  for  me,  I  have  scarcely  begun  mine.  I  have 
not  yet  spoken  of  the  popular  hatred  of  capital,  of 
gratuitous  credit  (loans  without  interest) — a  most 
unfortunate  notion,  a  deplorable  mistake,  which 
takes  its  rise  from  the  same  source. 

B.  What !  does  this  frightful  commotion  of 
the  populace  against  capitalists  arise  from  money 
being  confounded  with  wealth  ? 

J^.  It  is  the  result  of  different  causes.  Unfor- 
tunately, certain  capitalists  have  arrogated  to 
themselves  monopolies  and  privileges  which  are 
quite  sufficient  to  account  for  this  feeling.  But 
when  the  theorists  of  democracy  have  wished  to 
justify  it,  to  systematize  it,  to  give  it  the  appear- 
ance of  a  reasonable  opinion,  and  to  turn  it 
against  the  very  nature  of  capital,  they  have  had 


was  made  some  some  months  since  to  an  eminent  American 
merchant  (A.  T.  Stewart),  whose  large  and  varied  experience 
abundantly  qualified  him  to  discuss  the  subject ;  and  the  re- 
sult of  the  application  may  be  thus  stated  : 

Q.  In  buying  in  gold  and  selling  in  currency,  what  addi- 
tion do  you  make  to  your  selling  price,  in  the  way  of  insur- 
ance, that  the  currency  received  will  be  sufficient — plus  pro- 
fit, interest,  etc. — to  replace  or  buy  back  the  gold  repre- 
sented by  the  original  purchase  ? 


214  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

recourse  to  that  false  political  economy  at  whose 
root  the  same  confusion  is  always  to  be  found. 
They  have  said  to  the  people : — "  Take  a  dollar  ; 
put  it  under  a  glass;  forget  it  for  a  year*;  then 
go  and  look  at  it,  and  you  will  be  convinced  that  it 
has  not  produced  ten  cents,  nor  five  cents,  nor  any 

A.  We  do  but  very  little  of  tliat  now  ;  hardly  enough  to 
Bpeak  about. 

Q.  But  still  you  make  insurance  against  currency  fluctua- 
tions an  item  in  your  business  to  be  regarded  to  some  ex- 
tent. 

A.  Why,  yes,  certainly ;  it  won't  do  to  overlook  it  en- 
tirely. 

Q.  Well,  then,  if  you  have  no  objections,  please  tell  me 
what  you  do  allow  under  existing  circumstances  ? 

A.  I  have  certainly  no  objections.  We  buy  closely  for 
cash  ;  sell  largely  for  cash,  or  very  short  credit ;  and,  within 
the  comparatively  narrow  limits  that  currency  has  fluctuated 
for  the  last  two  or  three  years,  add  but  little  to  our  selling 
prices  as  insurance  on  that  account,  say  one  or  two  per  cent, 
for  cash,  or  three  months'  credit ;  and  for  a  longer  credit — 
if  we  give  it — something  additional.  During  or  immedi- 
ately after  the  war,  when  the  currency  fluctuations  were 
more  extensive,  frequent,  and  capricious,  tlie  case  was  very 
different.  Then  selling  prices  had  to  be  watched  very 
closely,  and  changed  very  frequently,  sometimes  daily.  My 
present  experience,  therefore,  is  exceptional  ;  and  to  get  the 
information  you  want,  you  must  look  further.  I  think  I  can 
lielp  you  to  do  this.  We  buy  regularly  large  quantities  of  a 
foreign  product,  let  us  suppose,  for  illustration,  cloths,  for 
the  large  manufacturers  and  dealers  in  ready-made  clothing. 
We  buy  for  gold,  and  we  sell  for  gold,  and  do  not  allow  the 


WHAT  IS  MONEY 

fraction  of  a  cent.  Therefore,  money  produces 
no  interest."  Then,  substituting  for  the  word 
money,  its  pretended  sign,  capital^  they  have 
made  it  by  their  logic  undergo  this  modification — 
"  Then  capital  produces  no  interest."  Then  fol- 
lows this  series  of  consequences — "  Therefore  he 


currency  or  its  fluctuations  to  enter  in  any  way  into  these 
transactions.  But  how  is  it  with  my  customers  ?  I  allow 
them  some  credit ;  and  the  amount  involved  being  often 
very  large,  I,  of  course,  must  know  something  of  the  way  in 
which  they  manage  their  business.  They  transform  the 
cloth  purchased  with  gold  into  clothing,  and  then  sell  the 
clothing,  in  turn,  to  their  customers,  jobbers  and  retailers, 
all  over  the  country,  for  currency,  on  a  much  longer  average 
credit  than  they  obtain  from  me  for  their  raw  material.  As 
a  matter  of  safety  and  necessity  these  wholesale  dealers  and 
manufacturers  must  add  to  their  selling  prices  a  sufficient 
percentage  to  make  sure  that  the.  currency  they  are  to  re- 
ceive at  the  end  of  three,  six,  or  nine  months  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  buy  them  as  much  gold  as  they  have  paid  to  me,  or 
as  much  as  will  buy  them  another  lot'of  cloth  to  meet  the 
further  demands  of  their  business  and  their  customers. 
How  much  they  thus  add  I  cannot  definitely  say.  There  is 
no  regular  rule.  Every  man  doubtless  adds  all  that  compe- 
tition will  permit ;  and  every  circumstance  likely  to  affect 
the  prospective  price  of  gold  is  carefully  considered.  Five 
per  cent.,  in  my  opinion,  on  a  credit  of  three  months,  would 
be  the  average  minimum  ;  and  for  a  longer  time,  a  larger  per- 
centage. If  competition  does  not  allow  any  insurance  per- 
centage to  be  added  there  is  a  liability  to  a  loss  of  capital, 
which  in  the  long  run  may  be  most  disastrous,  a  circum- 
etance  that  may  explain  the  wreck  of  many  firms,  whose 


216  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

who  lends  a  capital  ought  to  obtain  nothing  from 
it ;  therefore  he  >vho  lends  you  a  capital,  if  he 
gains  something  by  it,  is  robbing  you  ;  there- 
fore all  capitalists  are  robbers  ;  therefore  wealth, 
which  ought  to  serve  gratuitously  those  who  bor- 
row it,  belongs  in  reality  to  those  to  whom  it 
does  not  belong  ;  therefore  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  property,  therefore  everything  belongs  to 
everybody ;  therefore     .     .     .     .     " 

managers,  on  the  old-fashioned  basis  of  doing  business, 
would  have  been  successful.  The  jobbors.and  the  re- 
tailers, to  whom  the  wholesale  dealers  and  manufacturers 
sell,  are  not  so  likely  to  take  currency  insurance  into  con- 
sideration in  fixing  their  selling  prices  ;  but  to  whatever 
amount  the  cost  price  of  their  goods  has  been  enhanced  by 
the  necessity  of  insurance  against  currency  fluctuations,  on 
that  same  amount  they  estimate  and  add  for  interest  and 
profits  ;  the  total  enhancement  of  prices  falling  ultimately 
on  the  consumer,  who,  of  necessity,  can  rarely  know  the 
elements  of  the  cost  of  the  article  he  purchases. 

Q.  So  Mr.  Webster,  then,  in  his  remark,  which  has  become 
almost  a  proverb,  that  "  of  all  contrivances  for  cheating  the 
laboring  classes,  none  has  been  more  effectual  than  that 
which  deludes  them  with  paper  money,"  must  have  been 
thorou<?hly  cognizant  of  the  nature  of  such  transactions  ? 

A.  Most  undoubtedly  ;  for  such  transactions  are  the  in- 
evitable consequence  of  using  as  a  medium  of  exchange  a 
variable,  irredeemable  currency. 

The  illustration  above  given,  therefore,  in  the  place  of 
being  imaginary,  is  based  on  the  actual  condition  of  busi- 
ness at  the  present  time,  January,  1876. — I^ote  from  Robin- 
son Crusoe's  Money,  by  David  A.  Wells. 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  217 

B.  This  is  very  serious ;  the  more  so,  from  the 
syllogism  being  so  admirahly  formed.  I  should 
very  much  like  to  be  enlightened  on  the  subject. 
But,  alas !  I  can  no  longer  command  my  atten- 
tion. There  is  such  a  confusion  in  my  head  of 
the  words  coin^  money ^  services,  capital,  interest, 
that  really  I  hardly  know  where  I  am.  We 
will,  if  you  please,  resume  the  conversation  ano- 
ther day. 

JF.  In  the  meantime  here  is  a  little  work 
entitled  Capital  and  Bent.  It  may  perhaps  re- 
move some  of  your  doubts.  Just  look  at  it  when 
you  are  in  want  of  a  little  amusement. 

B.  To  amuse  me  ? 

F.  Who  knows  ?  One  nail  drives  in  another ; 
one  wearisome  thing  drives  away  another. 

B,  I  have  not  yet  made  up  my  mind  that  your 
views  upon  money  and  political  economy  in  gen- 
eral are  correct.  But,  from  your  conversation, 
this  is  wjiat  I  have  gathered  : — That  these  ques- 
tions are  of  the  highest  importance  ;  for.  peace  or 
war,  order  or  anarchy,  the  union  or  the  antagon- 
ism of  citizens,  are  at  the  root  of  the  answer  to 
them.  How  is  it  that  in  France  and  most  other 
countries  which  regard  themselves  as  highly  civil- 
ized, a.  science  which  concerns  us  all  so  nearly, 
and  the  diffusion  of  which  would  have  so  decisive 

an  influence  upon  the  fate  of  mankind,  is  so  little 
10 


218  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

known?  Is  it  that  tlie  State  does  not  teach  it 
sufficiently  ? 

F,  Not  exactly.  For,  without  knowing  it,  the 
State  applies  itself  to  loading  everybody's  brain 
with  prejudices,  and  everybody's  heart  with  senti- 
ments favorable  to  the  spirit  of  anarch}^,  war,  and 
hatred  ;  so  that,  when  a  doctrine  of  order,  peace, 
and  union  presents  itself,  it  is  in  vain  that  it  has 
clearness  and  truth  on  its  side, — it  cannot  gain  ad- 
mittance. 

B»  Decidedly  you  are  a  frightful  grumbler. 
What  interest  can  the  State  have  in  mystifying 
people's  intellects  in  favor  of  revolutions,  and 
civil  and  foreign  wars?  There  must  certainly  be 
a  great  deal  of  exaggeration  in  what  you  say. 

F.  Consider.  At  the  period  when  our  intel- 
lectual faculties  begin  to  develop  themselves,  at 
the  age  when  impressions  are  liveliest,  when 
habits  of  mind  are  formed  with  the  greatest  ease 
— when  we  might  look  at  society  and  understand 
it — in  a  ^  word,  as  soon  as  we  are  seven  or  eiglxt 
years  old,  what  does  the  State  do?  It  puts  a 
bandage  over  our  eyes,  takes  us  gently  from  the 
midst  of  the  social  circle  which  surrounds  us,  to 
plunge  us,  with  our  susceptible  faculties,  our  im- 
pressible hearts,  into  the  midst  of  Roman  society. 
It  keeps  us  there  for  ten  years  at  least,  long 
enough  to  make  an  ineffaceable  impression  on 


^      Tl 


WHAT  IS  MONEY?  219 


the  brain.  Now  observe,  that  Eoman  society  is 
directly  opposed  to  what  our  society  onght  to  be. 
There  they  lived  upon  war  ;  liere  we  ought  to  hate 
war ;  there  they  hated  hibor ;  here  w^e  ought  to  live 
upon  labor.  There  the  means  of  subsistence  were 
founded  upon  slavery  and  plunder;  here  they 
should  be  drawn  from  free  industry.  Homan 
society  was  organized  in  consequence  of  its  prin- 
ciple. It  necessarily  admired  what  made  it 
prosper.  There  they  considered  as  virtue  what 
w^e  look  upon  as  vice.  Its  poets  and  historians 
had  to  exalt  what  we  ought  to  despise.  The  very 
words  liherti/y  order,  justice,  people,  honor,  in- 
Huence,  etc.,  could  not  have  the  same  signification 
at  Home,  as  they  have,  or  ought  to  have,  at  Paris. 
How  can  you  expect  tliat  all  these  youths  who 
have  been  at  university  or  conventual  schools, 
with  Livy  and  Qiiintus  Curtins  for  their  cat- 
echism, will  not  understand  liberty  like  the 
Gracchi,  virtue  like  Cato,  patriotism  like  Csesar? 
How  can  you  expect  them  not  to  be  factious  and 
warlike?  How  can  you  expect  them  to  take  the 
slightest  interest  in  the  mechanism  of  our  social 
order?  Do  you  think  that  their  minds  have  been 
prepared  to  understand  it  ?  Do  you  not  see  that 
in  order  to  do  so  they  must  get  rid  of  their  pres- 
ent impressions,  and  receive  others  entirely  op- 
posed to  them  ? 


220  WHAT  IS  MONEY? 

J5.  What  do  you  conclude  from  that? 

F,  I  will  tell  you.  The  most  urgent  necessity 
is,  not  that  the  State  should  teach,  but  that  it 
should  allow  education.  All  monopolies  are  de- 
testable, but  the  worst  of  all  is  the  monopoly  of 
education. 


THE  LAW. 


221 


THE    LAW. 


The  law  perverted  !  The  law — and,  in  its  wake, 
all  the  collective  forces  of  the  nation — the  law,  I 
saj,  not  only  diverted  from  its  proper  direction, 
but  made  to  pursue  one  entirely  contrary  !  The 
law  become  the  tool  of  every  kind  of  avarice,  in- 
stead of  being  its  check !  The  law  guilty  of  that 
very  iniquity  which  it  was  its  mission  to  punish  I 
Truly,  this  is  a  serious  fact,  if  it  exists,  and  one 
to  which  I  feel  bound  to  call  the  attention  of  my 
fellow-citizens. 

We  hold  from  God  the  gift  which,  as  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  contains  all  others,  Life — physical, 
intellectual,  and  moral  life. 

But  life  cannot  support  itself.  He  who  has  be- 
stowed it,  has  entrusted  us  with  the  care  of  sup- 
porting it,  of  developing  it,  and  of  perfecting  it. 
To  that  end  He  has  provided  us  with  a  collection 
of  wonderful  faculties ;  He  lias  plunged  us  into 
the  midst  of  a  variety  of  elements.  It  is  b}^  the 
application  of  our  faculties  to  these  elements  that 
the  phenomena  of  assimilation  and  of  appropria- 


222  THE  LAW. 

tion,  by  -svhicli  life  pursues  the  circle  wliicli  has 
been  assigned  to  it,  are  realized. 

Existence,  faculties,  assimilation  —  in  other 
words,  personality,  liberty,  property — this  is  man. 
It  is  of  these  three  things  that  it  may  be  said, 
apart  from  all  demagogue  subtlety,  that  they  are 
anterior  and  superior  to  all  human  legislation. 

It  is  not  because  men  have  made  laws,  that  per- 
sonality, liberty,  and  property  exist.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  because  personality^,  liberty,  and  prop- 
erty exist  beforehand,  that  men  make  laws. 

What,  then,  is  law  ?  As  I  have  said  elsewhere, 
it  is  the  collective  organization  of  the  individual 
right  to  lawful  defense. 

JSTature,  or  rather  God,  has  bestowed  upon 
every  one  of  us  the  right  to  defend  his  person, 
his  liberty,  and  his  property,  since  these  are  the 
three  constituent  or  preserving  elements  of  life ; 
elements,  each  of  which  is  rendered  complete  by 
the  others,  and  cannot  be  understood  without 
them.  For  what  are  our  faculties  but  the  exten- 
sion of  our  personality  ?  and  what  is  i)r()pertj 
but  an  extension  of  our  faculties  ? 

If  every  man  has  the  right  of  defending,  even 
by  force,  his  person,  his  liberty,  and  his  property,  a 
number  of  men  have  the  right  to  combine  together, 
to  extend,  to  orgainize  a  common  force,  to  provide 
regularly  for  this  defense. 


THE  LAW.  223 

Collective  right,  then,  has  its  principle,  its 
reason  for  existing,  its  lawfulness,  in  individual 
right ;  and  the  common  force  cannot  rationally 
have  any  other  end,  or  any  other  mission,  than 
that  of  the  isolated  forces  for  which  it  is  substi- 
tuted. Thus,  as  the  force  of  an  individual  cannot 
lawfully  touch  the  person,  the  lilperty,  or  the 
property  of  another  individual — for  the  same 
reason,  the'  common  force  cannot  lawfully  be 
used  to  destroy  the  person,  the  liberty,  or  the 
property  of  individuals  or  of  classes. 

For  this  perversion  of  force  would  be,  in  one  case 
as  in  the  other,  in  contradiction  to  our  premises. 
For  who  will  assume  to  say  that  force  has  been  given 
to  us,  not  to  defend  our  rights,  but  to  annihilate  the 
equal  rights  of  our  brethren?  And  if  this  be  not 
true  of  every  individual  force,  acting  independently, 
how  can  it  be  true  of  the  collective  force,  which  is 
only  tlie  organized  union  of  isolated  forces? 

Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more  evident  than 
this: — The  law  is  the  organization  of  the  natural 
right  of  lawful  defense ;  it  is  the  substitution  of 
collective  for  individual  forces,  for  the  purpose  of 
acting  in  the  sphere  in  which  such  collective  forces 
have  a  right  to  act,  of  doing  what  they  have  a 
right  to  do,  to  secure  persons,  liberties,  and  prop- 
erties, and  to  maintain  each  in  its  right,  so  as  to 
cause  justice  to  reign  over  all. 


224  THE  LAW. 

And  if  a  people  establislied  upon  tliis  basis  were 
to  exist,  it  seems  to  me  that  order  would  prevail 
among  them  in  their  acts  as  well  as  in  their  ideas. 
It  seems  to  me  that  such  a  people  would  have  the 
most  simple,  the  most  economical,  the  least  oppres- 
sive, the  least  to  be  felt,  the  least  responsible,  the 
most  just,  and,  consequently,  the  most  solid  Gov- 
ernment which  could  be  imagined,  wdiatever  its 
political  form  might  be. 

For,  under  such  an  administration,  every  one 
would  feel  that  he  possessed  all  the  fullness,  as  well 
as  all  the  responsibility  of  his  existence.  So  long 
as  personal  safety  was  insured,  so  long  as  labor 
was  free,  and  the  fruits  of  labor  secured  against  all 
unjust  attacks,  no  one  woitld  have  any  difficulties 
to  contend  with  in  the  State.  When  prosperous, 
we  should  not,  it  is  true,  have  to  thank  the  State  \ 
for  our  success ;  but  when  unfortunate,  we  should 
no  more  think  of  taxing  it  with  our  disasters  than 
our  peasants  think  of  attributing  to  it  the  arrival 
of  hail  or  of  frost.  "We  should  know  it  only  by 
the  inestimable  blessing  of  Safety. 

It  may  further  be  affirmed,  that,  thanks  to  the 
non-intervention  of  the  State  in  private  affairs, 
our  wants  and  their  satisfactions  would  develop 
themselves  in  their  natural  order.  We  should  not 
see  poor  families  seeking  for  literary  instruction 
before  they  were  supplied  with  bread.   We  should 


THE  LAW.  225 

not  see  towns  peopled  at  the  expense  of  rural  dis- 
tricts, nor  rural  districts  at  the  expense  of  towns. 
We  should  not  see  those  great  displacements  of 
capital,  of  labor,  and  of  population,  which  legisla- 
tive measures  occasion  ;  displacements  which  ren- 
der so  uncertain  and  precarious  tlievery  sources  of 
existence,  and  thus  aggravate  to  such  an  extent 
the  responsibility  of  Governments. 

Unhappily  law  is  by  no  means  confined  to  its 
own  department.  [N^oris  it  merely  in  some  indiffe- 
rent and  debatable  views  that  it  has  left  its  proper 
sphere.  It  lias  done  more  than  this.  It  has  acted  in 
direct  opposition  to  its  proper  end;  it  has  destroyed 
its  own  object;  it  has  been  employed  in  annihilat- 
ing tliat  justice  which  it  ought  to  have  established, 
in  effacing  among  Rights  that  limit  which  was  its 
true  mission  to  respect;  it  has  placed  the  collective 
force  in  the  service  of  those  who  wish  to  traffic,  with- 
out risk  and  without  scruple,  in  the  persons,  the 
liberty,  and  the  property  of  others ;  it  has  converted 
plunder  into  a  right,  that  it  may  protect  it,  and 
lawful  defense  into  a  crime,  that  it  may  punish  it. 

How  has  this  perversion  of  law  been  accom- 
plished ?     And  what  has  resulted  from  it  ? 

The  law  has  been  perverted  through  the  influ- 
ence of  two  very  different  causes — bare  egotism 
and  false  philanthropy. 

Let  us  speak  of  the  former. 


226  THE  LAW. 

Self-preservation  and  developement  is  tlie  com- 
mon aspiration  of  all  men,  in  sucli  a  way  that  if 
every  one  enjoyed  the  free  exercise  of  his  faculties 
and  the  free  disposition  of  the  fruits  of  tlieir  labor, 
social  progress  would  be  incessant,  uninterrupted, 
inevitable. 

But  there  is  also,  another  disposition  which  is 
common  to  them.  Tliis  is,  to  live  and  to  develop, 
when  they  can,  at  the  expense  of  one  another. 
This  is  no  rash  imputation,  emanating  from  a 
gloomy,  uncharitable  spirit.  History  bears  witness 
to  the  truth  of  it,  by  the  incessant  wars,  the  migra- 
tions of  races,  sacerdotal  oppressions,  the  univer- 
sality of  slavery,  the  frauds  in  trade,  and  the  mo- 
nopolies with  which  its  annals  abound.  This  unfor- 
tunate disposition  has  its  origin  in  the  very  consti- 
tution of  man — in  that  primitive,  and  universal, 
and  invincible  sentiment  which  urges  it  towards 
its  well-being,  and  makes  it  seek  to  escape  pain. 

Man  can  only  maintain  life  and  obtain  enjoy- 
ment from  a  perpetual  search  and  appropriation ; 
that  is,  from  a  perpetual  application  of  his  faculties 
to  objects,  or  from  labor.  This  is  the  origin  of 
property. 

But  3^et  he  may  live  and  enjoy,  by  seizing,  and 
appropriating  the  productions  of  his  fellow-men. 
This  is  the  origin  of  plunder. 

1^0 w^  labor  being  in  itself  a  pain,  and  man  being 


THE  LAW.  227 

naturally  inclined  to  avoid  pain,  it  follows,  and 
liistorj  proves  it,  that  v^lierever  plunder  is  less 
burdensome  than  labor,  it  prevails;  and  neither 
religion  nor  morality  can,  in  this  case,  prevent  it 
from  prevailing. 

When  does  plunder  cease,  then  ?  When  it  be- 
comes more  difficult  and  more  dangerous  than 
labor.  It  is  very  evident  that  the  proper  aim  of 
law  is  to  oppose  the  powerful  obstacle  of  collective 
force  to  the  tendency  to  do  wrong ;  that  all  its 
measures  should  be  in  favor  of  the  security  of 
property,  and  against  plunder. 

But  the  law  is  made,  generally,  by  one  man,  or 
by  one  class  of  men.  And  as  law  cannot  exist 
without  the  sanction  and  the  support  of  a  prepon- 
derating force,  it  must  finally  place  this  force  in 
the  hands  of  those  who  legislate. 

This  inevitable  phenomenon,  combined  with  the 
fatal  tendency  which,  we  have  said,  exists  in  the 
heart  of  man,  explains  the  almost  universal  per- 
version of  law.  It  is  easy  to  conceive  that,  instead 
of  being  a  check  upon  injustice,  it  becomes  its 
most  invincible  instrument.  It  is  easy  to  conceive 
that,  according  to  the  power  of  the  legislator,  it 
destroys  for  its  own  profit,  and  in  different  degrees, 
amongst  the  rest  of  the  community,  personal  in- 
dependence by  slaver}^,  liberty  by  oppression,  and 
property  by  plunder. 


228  THE  LAW. 

It  is  in  the  nature  of  men  to  rise  against  the 
injustice  of  which  thej  are  the  victims.  When, 
therefore,  plunder  is  organized  by  law,  for  tlie 
profit  of  those  who  perpetrate  it,  all  the  plundered 
classes  tend,  eitlier  bj  peaceful  or  revolutionary 
means,  to  enter  in  some  way  into  the  business  of 
manufacturing  laws.  These  classes,  according  to 
the  degree  of  enlightenment  at  which  they  have 
arrived,  miiy  propose  to  themselves  two  very  dif- 
ferent ends,  when  they  thus  attempt  the  attainment 
of  their  political  rights;  eitlier  they  may  wish  to 
put  an  end  to  lawful  plunder,  or  they  may  desire 
to  take  part  in  it. 

Woe  to  the  nation  where  this  latter  thought 
prevails  amongst  the  masses,  at  the  moment  when 
they,  in  tlieir  turn,  seize  upon  the  legislative 
power ! 

Up  to  that, time  lawful  plunder  has  been  exer- 
cised by  the  few  upon  the  many,  as  is  the  case  in 
countries  where  the  right  of  legislating  is  confined 
to  a  few  hands.  But  now  it  has  become  universal, 
and  the  equilibrium  is  sought  in  universal  plun- 
der. The  injustice  which  society  contains,  instead 
of  being  rooted  out  of  it,  is  generalized.  As  soon 
as  the  injured  classes  have  recovered  their  political 
rights,  their  first  thought  is  not  to  abolisli  plunder 
(this  would  suppose  them  to  possess  enlightenment, 
which  they  cannot  have),  but  to  organize  against 


THE  LAW.  229 

the  other  classes,  and  to  their  detriment,  a  system 
of  reprisals — as  if  it  was  necessary,  before  the  reign 
of  justice  arrives,  that  all  should  undergo  a  cruel 
retribution — some  for  their  iniquity  aad  some  for 
their  ignorance. 

It  would  be  impossible,  tlierefore,  to  introduce 
into  society  a  greater  change  and  a  greater  evil 
than  this — the  conversion  of  the  law  into  an  in- 
strument of  plunder. 

What  would  be  the  consequences  of  such  a  per- 
version ?  It  would  require  volumes  to  describe 
them  all.  We  must  content  ourselves  with  point- 
ing  out  the  most  striking. 

In  the  first  place,  it  would  efface  from  every- 
body's conscience  the  distinction  between  justice 
and  injustice. 

'No  society  can  exist  unless  the  laws  are  respect- 
ed to  a  certain  degree,  but  the  safest  way  to  make 
them  respected  is  to  make  them  respectable. 
When  law  and  morality  are  in  contradiction  to 
each  other,  the  citizen  finds  himself  in  the  cruel 
alternative  of  either  losing  his  moral  sense,  or  of 
losing  his  respect  for  the  law — two  evils  of  equal 
magnitude,  between  which  it  would  be  difficult  to 
choose. 

It  is  so  much  in  the  nature  of  law  to  support 
justice,  that  in  the  minds  of  the  masses  they  are 
one  and  the  same.     There  is  in  all  of  us  a  strong 


230  THE  LAW. 

disposition  to  regard  what  is  lawful  as  legitimate, 
so  much  so,  that  many  falsely  derive  all  notions  of 
justice  from  law.  It  is  sufficient,  then,  for  the  law 
to  order  and  sanction  plunder,  that  it  may  appear 
to  many  consciences  just  and  sacred.  Slavery, 
protection,  and  monopoly  find  defenders,  not  only 
in  those  who  prolit  by  them,  but  in  those  who  suf- 
fer by  them.  If  you  suggest  a  doubt  as  to  the 
morality  of  these  institutions,  it  is  said  directly — • 
"  You  are  a  dangerous  innovator,  a  Utopian,  a 
theorist,  a  despiser  of  the  laws ;  you  would  shake 
the  basis  upon  which  society  rests." 

If  you  lecture  upon  morality,  or  political  econ- 
omy, somebody  will  be  found  to  make  this  request 
to  the  proper  authorities  : — 

"  That  henceforth  economic  science  be  taught 
not  only  with  sole  reference  to  free  exchange  (to 
liberty,  property,  and  justice),  as  has  been  the  case 
up  to  the  present  time,  but  also,  and  especially 
with  reference  to  the  facts  and  legislation  (contrary 
to  liberty,  property,  and  justice)  which  regulate 
domestic  industry. 

"  That  in  public  pulpits  the  preachers  abstain 
rigorously  from  impairing  in  the  slightest  degree 
the  respect  due  to  tire  laws  now  in  force."  ^ 


*  Proceedings  of  the  French.  General  Council  of  Manufac- 
tures,  Agriculture,  and  Commerce,  Gth  of  May,  1850. 


THE  LAW.  231 

So  that  if  a  law  exists  which  sanctions  slavery 
or  monopoly,  oppression  or  plunder,  in  any  form 
whatever,  it  must  not  even  be  mentioned — for  how 
can  it  be  mentioned  without  damaging  the  respect 
which  it  inspires  ?  Still  further,  morality  and  po- 
litical economy  must  be  taught  in  connection  with 
this  law — that  is,  under  the  supposition  that  it 
must  be  just,  only  because  it  is  law. 

Another  effect  of  this  deplorable  perversion  of 
the  law  is,  that  it  gives  to  human  -passions  and  to 
political  struggles,  and  in  general  to  politics,  pro- 
perl}^  so  called,  an  exaggerated  preponderance. 

I  could  prove  this  assertion  in  a  thousand  ways. 
But  I  shall  confine  myself,  by  way  of  illustration, 
to  bringing  it  to  bear  upon  a  subject  which  has 
of  late  occupied  everybody's  mind — universal  suf- 
frage. 

"Whatever  may  be  thought  of  it,  I  maintain  that 
universal  suffrage  (taking  the  word  in  its  strictest 
sense)  is  not  one  of  tlio'se  sacred  dogmas  with  re- 
spect to  which  examination  and  doubt  are  crimes. 

Serious  objections  may  be  made  to  it. 

In  the  first  place,  the  word  universal  conceals  a 
gross  sophism.  There  are,  in  France,  for  example, 
36,000,000  of  inhabitants.  To  make  the  right  of 
suffrage  universal,  36,000,000  of  electors  should 
be  reckoned.  The  most  extended  system  reckons 
only  9,000,000.     Three  persons  out  of  four,  then, 


232  THE  LAW. 

« 

are  excluded  ;  and  more  than  this,  thej  are  ex- 
cluded by  the  fourth.  Upon  what  principle  is  this 
exclusion  founded  ?  Upon  the  principle  of  inca- 
pacity. Universal  suffrage,  then,  means — univer- 
sal suffrage  of  those  who  are  capable.  In  point 
of  fact,  who  are  the  capable  ?  Are  age,  sex,  and 
judicial  condemnations  the  only  conditions  to  which 
incapacity  is  to  be  attached  ? 

Ou  taking  a  nearer  view  of  the  subject,  we  may 
soon  perceive  the  motive  which  causes  the  right 
of  suffrage  to  depend  upon  the  presumption  of  in- 
capacity ;  the  most  extended  system  differing  only 
in  this  respect  from  the  most  restricted,  by  the 
appreciation  of  those  conditions  on  which  this  in- 
capacity depends,  and  which  constitute,  not  a 
difference  in  principle  but  in  degree. 

This  motive  is,  that  the  elector  does  not  stipu- 
late for  himself,  but  for  everybody. 

If,  as  the  republicans  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
tone  pretend,  the  right  of  suffrage  had  fallen  to 
the  lot  of  every  one  at  his  birth,  it  would  be  an 
injustice  to  adults  to  prevent  women  and  children 
from  voting.  Why  are  they  prevented  ?  Because 
they  are  presumed  to  be  incapable.  And  why  is 
incapacity  a  motive  for  exclusion  ?  Because  the 
elector  does  not  alone  sustain  the  responsibility  of 
his  vote ;  because  every  vote  affects  the  community 
at  large ;  because  the  community  has  a  right  to 


THE  LAW.  233 

demand  some  security  of  eacli  elector  in  respect 
to  the  performance  of  acts  upon  which  his  well- 
being  depends. 

I  know  what  might  be  said  in  answer  to  this, 
I  know  what  might  be  objected.  But  this  is  not 
the  place  to  enter  into  a  controversy  of  this  kind. 
"W^hat  I  wish  to  observe  is  this,  that  this  same  con- 
troversy about  suffrage  (in  common  with  most 
political  questions)  which  agitates,  excites,  and  un- 
settles the  nations,  would  lose  almost  all  its  impor- 
tance if  the  law  had  always  been  what  it  ought  to  be. 

In  fact,  if  law  were  confined  to  causing  all  per- 
sons, all  liberties,  and  all  properties  to  be  re- 
spected ;  if  it  were  merely  the  organization  of  in- 
dividual right  and  individual  defense  ;  if  it  were 
the  obstacle,  the  check,  the  chastisement  opposed 
to  all  oppression,  to  all  plunder — is  it  likely  that 
we  should  dispute  much,  as  citizens,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  greater  or  less  universality  of  suftVage  ? 
Is  it  likely  that  such  disputes  would  compromise 
that  greatest  of  advantages,  the  public  peace  ?  Is 
it  likely  that  the  excluded  classes  would  not  quietly 
wait  for  their  political  recognition  ?  Is  it  likely 
that  the  enfranchised  classes  would  be  very  jeal- 
ous of  tlieir  privilege  ?  And  is  it  not  clear,  that 
the  interest  of  all  being  one  and  the  same,  a  few 
would  manage  political  affairs  without  much  incon- 
venience to  the  others  ? 


234:  THE  LAW. 

But  if  tlie  fatal  principle  should  come  to  be 
introduced,  that,  under  pretense  of  organization, 
reojulation,  protection,  or  encouragement,  the  law 
may  take  from  one  party  in  order  to  give  to 
another;  help  itself  to  wealth  acquired  by  all 
classes  that  it  may  increase  that  .of  one  class, 
whether  that  of  the  agriculturists,  the  manufac- 
turers, the  shipowners,  or  artists  and  comedians ; 
then  certainly,  in  this  case,  there  is  no  class  which 
may  not  pretend,  and  with  reason,  to  place  its 
hand  upon  the  law ;  which  would  not  demand 
with  fury  its  right  of  election  and  eligibility,  and 
which  would  not  overturn  society  rather  than 
not  obtain  it.  Even  beggars  and  vagabonds  will 
prove  to  you  that  they  have  an  incontestable  title 
to  suffrage.  They  will  say — '^  We  never  buy 
wine,  tobacco,  or  salt,  without  paying  the  tax, 
and  a  part  of  this  tax  is  given  by  law  in  perqui- 
sites and  gratuities  to  men  who  are  richer  than 
we  are.  Others  make  use  of  the  law  to  create  an 
artificial  rise  in  the  price  of  bread,  meat,  iron,  or 
cloth.  Since  everybody  traffics  in  law  for  his 
own  profit,  we  should  like  to  do  the  same.  We 
should  like  to  make  it  affirm  the  right  to  assist- 
ance, public  and  private,  which  is  the  poor  man's 
plunder.  To  effect  this,  we  ought  to  be  electors 
and  legislators,  that  we  may  organize,  on  a  large 
scale,  alms  for  our  own  class,  as  you  have  organ- 


THE  LAW.  235 

ized,  on  a  large  scale,  protection  for  yours.  Don't 
tell  us  that  you  will  take  our  cause  upon  your- 
selves, and  throw  to  us  bounties  and  offices  to  keep 
us  quiet,  like  giving  us  a  bone  to  pick.  We  have 
other  claims,  and,  at  any  rate,  we  wish  to  stipu- 
late for  ourselves,  as  other  classes  have  stipuhited 
for  themselves!"  How  is  this  argument  to  be 
answered?  Yes,  as  long  as  it  is  admitted  that 
the  law  may  be  diverted  from  its  true  mission,  that 
it  may  violate  property  instead  of  securing  it, 
everybody  will  be  wanting  to  manufacture  law, 
either  to  defend  himself  against  plunder,  or  to  or- 
ganize it  for  his  own  profit.  The  political  ques- 
tion will  always  be  prejudicial,  predominant,  and 
absorbing ;  in  a  word,  there  will  be  fighting 
around  the  door  of  the  Legislative  Chambers. 
The  struggle  will  be  no  less  furious  within  them. 
To  be  convinced  of  this,  it  is  hardlj^  necessary  to 
look  at  what  passes  in  the  Chambers  in  France,  in 
England,  and  in  the  United  States ;  it  is  enough 
to  know  how  the  question  stands. 

Is  there  any  need  to  prove  that  this  odious  per- 
version of  law  is  a  perpetual  source  of  hatred  and 
discord — that  it  even  tends  to  social  disorganiza- 
tion ?  Look  at  the  United  States.  There  is  no 
country  in  the  world  where  the  law  is  kept  more 
within  its  proper  domain — which  is,  to  secure  to 
every  one  his  liberty  and  his  property.     There- 


236  THE  LAW. 

fore,  there  is  no  country  in  the  world  where  social 
order  appears  to  rest  upon  a  more  solid  basis. 
Nevertheless,  even  in  the  United  States,  there 
are  two  questions,  and  only  two,  which  from  the 
beginning  have  endangered  political  order.  And 
what  are  these  two  questions  ?  That  of  slavery 
and  that  of  the  tariff  ;  *  that  is,  precisely  the  only 
two  questions  in  which,  contrary  to  the  general 
spirit  of  this  republic,  law  has  taken  the  character 
of  a  plunderer.  Slavery  is  a  violation,  sanctioned 
by.  law,  of  the  rights  of  the  person.  Protection  is 
a  violation  perpetrated  by  the  law  upon  the  rights 
of  property  ;  and  certainly  it  is  very  remarkable 
that,  in  the  midst  of  so  many  other  debates,  this 
double  legal  scourge^  a  sorrowful  inheritance  from 
the  Old  World,  should  be  the  only  one  which  can, 
and  perhaps  will,  cause  the  rupture  of  the  Union. 
Indeed,  a  more  astounding  fact,  in  the  heart  of 
society,  cannot  be  conceived  than  this  : — That 
law  should  have  'become  an  instrument  of  injustice. 
And  if  this  fact  occasions  consequences  so  formid- 
able to  the  United  States,  where  there  is  but  one 
exception,  what  must  it  be  with  us  in  Europe, 
where  it  is  a  principle — a  system  ? 

M.  Montalembert,  adopting  the  thought  of  a 


*  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  this  essay  was  written 
by  M.  Bastiat  before  the  emancipation  in  the- United  States. 


THE  LAW.  "^^^  237 

famous  proclamation  of  M.  Carlier,  said,  "We 
must  piake  war  against  socialism."  And  by  so- 
cialism, according  to  the  definition  of  M.  Charles 
Diipin,  he  meant  plmider. 

But  what  plunder  did  he  mean  ?  For  there 
are  two  sorts — extra-legal  and  legal  'plunder. 

As  to  extra-legal  plunder,  such  as  theft,  or 
swindling,  which  is  defined,  foreseen,  and  pun- 
ished bj  the  penal  code,  I  do  not  think  it  can  be 
adorned  bj  the  name  of  socialism.  It  is  not  this 
which  systematically  threatens  the  foundations  of 
society.  Besides,  the  war  against  this  kind  of 
plunder  has  not  waited  for  the  signal  of  M.  Mon- 
talembert  or  M.  Carlier.  It  has  gone  on  since  the 
beginning  of  the  world ;  France  was  carrying  it 
on  long  before  the  revolution  of  February,  1848 
— ^long  before  the  appearance  of  socialism — with 
all  the  ceremonies  of  magistracy,  police,  prisons, 
dungeons,  and  scaffolds.  It  is  the  law  itself 
which  is  conducting  this  war,  and  it  is  to  be 
wished,  in  my  opinion,  that  the  law  should  always 
maintain  this  attitude  with  respect  to  plunder. 

But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  law  sometimes 
takes  its  own  part.  Sometimes  it  accomplishes  it 
with  its  own  hands,  in  order  to  save  the  parties 
benefited  the  shame,  the  danger,  and  the  scruple. 
Sometimes  it  places  all  this  ceremony  of  magis- 
tracy, police,  gendarmerie,  and  prisons,  at  the  ser- 


238  THE  LAW. 

vice  of  the  plunderer,  and  treats  the  plundered 
party,  when  he  defends  himself,  as  the  criminal. 
In  a  word,  there  is  a  legal  jplunder^  and  it  is,  no 
doubt,  this  which  is  meant  by  M.  Montalembert. 

This  plunder  may  be  only  an  exceptional  blem- 
ish in  the  legislation  of  a  people,  and  in  this 
case  the  best  thing  that  can  be  done  is,  without 
60  many  speeches  and  lamentations,  to  do  away 
with  it  as  soon  as  possible,  notwithstanding  the 
clamors  of  interested  parties.  But  how  is  it  to  be 
distinguished  ?  Yery  easily.  See  whether  the 
law  takes  from  some  persons  that  which  belongs 
to  them,  to  give  to  others  what  does  not  belong  to 
them.  See  whether  the  law  performs,  for  the 
profit  of  one  citizen,  and  to  the  injury  of  others, 
an  act  which  this  citizen  cannot  perform  without 
committing  a  crime.  Abolish  this  law  without 
delay  ;  it  is  not  merely  an  iniquit}^ — it  is  a  fertile 
source  of  iniquities,  for  it  invites  reprisals ;  and 
if  you  do  not  take  care,  the  exceptional  case  will 
extend,  multiply,  and  become  systematic.  Xo 
doubt  the' party  benefited  will  protest  loudly;  he 
will  assert  his  acquired  rights.  He  will  say  that 
the  State  is  bound  to  protect  and  encourage  liis 
industry ;  he  will  plead  that  it  is  a  good  thing  for 
the  State  to  be  enriclied,  that  it  may  spend  the 
more,  and  thus  shower  down  salaries  upon  the 
poor  workmen.    Take  care  not  to  listen  to  thia 


THE  LAW. 

sophistry,  for  it  is  just  by  the  generalizing  of 
these  arguments  that  legal-plunder  becomes  sys- 
tematized. 

And  this  is  what  has  taken  place.  The  delu- 
sion of  the  day  is  to  enrich  ail  classes  at  the  ex- 
pense of  each  other ;  it  is  to  generalize  plunder 
under  pretense  of  organizing  it.  Now,  legal 
plunder  may  be  exercised  in  an  infinite  multitude 
of  w^ays.  Hence  come  an  infinite  multitude  of 
plans  for  organization ;  tariffs,  protection,  perqui- 
sites, gratuities,  encouragements,  progressive  tax- 
ation, gratuitous  instruction,  right  to  labor,  right 
to  profit,  right  to  wages,  right  to  assistance,  right 
to  instruments  of  labor,  gratuity  of  credit,  etc., 
etc.  And  it  is  all  these  plans,  taken  as  a  whole, 
with  what  they  have  in  common,  legal  plunder, 
which  takes  the  name  of  socialism. 

Now  socialism,  thus  defined,  and  forming  a 
doctrinal  bod}-,  what  other  w^ar  would  you  make 
against  it  than  a  war  of  doctrine  ?  You  find  this 
doctrine  fiilse,  absurd,  abominable.  Eefate  it. 
This  will  be  all  the  more  easy,  the  more  false,  the 
more  absurd  and  the  more  abominable  it  is. 
Above  all,  if  you  wish  to  be  strong,  begin  by 
rooting  out  of  your  legislation  every  particle  of 
socialism  which  may  have  crept  into  it, — and  this 
will  be  no  light  work. 

M.  Montalembert   has  been   reproached  with 


240  THE  LAW. 

wishing  to  turn  brute  force  against  socialism. 
He  ought  to  be  exonerated  from  this  reproach, 
for  he  has  plainly  said  : — "  The  war  w^hich  we  must 
make  against  socialism  must  be  one  which  is  com- 
patible with  the  law,  honor,  and  justice." 

But  how  is  it  that  M.  Montalembert  does  not 
see  that  he  is  placing  himself  in  a  vicious  circle  ? 
You  would  oppose  law  to  socialism.  But  it  is  the 
law  which  socialism  invokes.  It  aspires  to  legal, 
not  extra-legal  plunder.  It  is  the  law  itself,  in 
common  with  monopolists  of  all  kinds,  that  social- 
ism wants  to  use  as  an  instrument ,'  and  when 
once  it  has  the  law  on  its  side,  how  will  you  be 
able  to  turn  the  law  against  it  ?  How^will  you 
place  it  under  the  power  of  your  tribunals,  your 
police,  and  of  your  prisons  ?  What  will  you  do 
then  ?  You  wish  to  prevent  it  from  taking 
any  part  in  the  making  of  laws.  You  would 
keep  it  outside  the  Legislative  Halls.  In  this  you 
will  not  succeed,  I  venture  to  prophesy,  so  long 
as  legal  plunder  is  the  basis  of  the  legislation 
within. 

It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  this  question  of 
legal  plunder  should  be  clearly  defined,  and  there 
are  only  three  solutions  of  it : — 

1.  When  the  few  plunder  the  many. 

2.  When  everybody  plunders  everybody  else. 

3.  When  nobody  plunders  jyiybody. 


THE  LAW.  241 

Partial  plunder,  universal  plunder,  absence  of 
plunder,  amongst  these  we  have  to  make  our 
choice.  The  law  can  only  produce  one  of  these 
results. 

Partial  plunder. — This  is  the  system  which 
prevailed  so  long  as  the  elective  privilege  was 
partial — a  system  which  is  resorted  to  to  avoid 
the  invasion  of  socialism. 

Universal  plunder. — We  have  been  threatened 
by  this  system  when  the  elective  privilege  has  be- 
come universal ;  the  masses  having  conceived  the 
idea  of  making  law  on  the  principle  of  legislators 
who  had  preceded  them. 

Absence  of  plunder. — This  is  the  principle  of 
justice,  peace,  order,  stability,  conciliation,  and  of 
good  sense,  which  I  shall  proclaim  with  all  the 
force  of  my  lungs  (which  is  very  inadequate, 
alas  !)  till  the  day  of  my  death. 

And,  in  all  sincerity,  can  anything  more  be  re- 
quired at  the  hands  of  the  law  ?  Can  the  law, 
whose  necessary  sanction  is  force,  be  reasonably 
employed  upon  anything  beyond  securing  to  every 
one  his  right  ?  I  defy  any  one  to  remove  it  from 
this  circle  without  perverting  it,  and  consequently 
turning  force  against  right.  And  as  this  is  the 
most  fatal,  the  most  illogical  social  perversion 
w^hicli  can  possibly  be  imagined,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  true  solution,  so  much  sought 
11 


242  THE.  LAW. 

after,  of  tlie  social  problem,  is  contained  in  these 
simple  words — Law  is  organized  Justice. 

Now  it  is  important  to  remark,  that  to  organ- 
ize justice  by  law,  that  is  to  say  by  force,  excludes 
the  idea  of  organizing  by  law,  or  by  force  any 
manifestation  whatever  of  human  activity — labor, 
charity,  agriculture,  commerce,  industry,  instruc- 
tion,  the  fine  arts,  or  religion  ;  for  any  one  of  these 
organizations  would  inevitably  destroy  the  essen- 
tial organization.  How,  in  fact,  can  we  imagine 
force  encroaching  upon  the  liberty  of  citizens  with- 
out infringing  upon  justice,  and  so  acting  against 
its  proper  aim  ? 

Here  I  am  encountering  the  most  popular  pre- 
judice of  our  time.  It  is  not  considered  enough 
that  law  should  be.  just,  it  must  be  philanthropic. 
It  is  not  sufficient  that  it  should  guarantee  to 
every  citizen  the  free  and  inoffensive  exercise  of 
his  faculties,  applied  to  his  physical,  intellectual, 
and  moral  development ;  it  is  required  to  extend 
well-being,  instruction,  and  morality,  directly  over 
the  nation.  This  is  the  fascinating  side  of  social- 
ism. 

But,  I  repeat  it,  these  two  missions  of  the  law 
contradict  each  other.  We  have  to  choose  between 
them.  A  citizen  cannot  at  the  same  time  be  free 
and  not  free.  M.  de  Lamartine  wrote  to  me  one 
day  thus : — "  Your  doctrine  is  only  the  half  of  my 


THE  LAW.  243 

programme;  you  have  stopped  at  liberty,  I  go  on 
to  fraternity."  I  answered  him  : — "  The  second 
part  of  your  programme  will  destroy  the  first." 
A.nd  in  fact  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  separate  the 
word  fraternity  from  the  world  voluntary.  I 
cannot  possibly  conceive  fraternity  as  something 
which  has  got  to  be  legally  enforced,  without 
liberty  being  legally  destroyed,  and  justice  legally 
trampled  under  foot.  Legal  plunder  has  two 
roots :  one  of  them,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  in 
human  selfishness;  the  other  is  in  false  philan- 
thropy. 

Before  I  proceed  I  think  I  ought  to  explain 
myself  upon  the  word  plunder.* 

I  do  not  take  it,  as  it  often  is  taken,  in  a  vague, 
undefined,  relative,  or  metaphorical  sense.  I  use 
it  in  its  scientific  acceptation,  and  as  expressing 
the  opposite  idea  to  property.  AVhen  a  portion  of 
wealth  passes  out  of  the  hands  of  him  who  has 
acquired  it,  without  his  consent,  and  without  com- 
pensation, to  him  who  has  not  created  it,  whether 
by  force  or  by  artifice,  I  say  that  property  is  vio- 
lated, that  plunder  is  perpetrated.  I  say  that  this 
is  exactly  what  the  law  ought  to  repress  always 
and  everywhere.  If  the  law  itself  performs  the 
action  it  ought  to  repress,  I  say  that  plunder  is 

*  The  French  word  is  spoliation. 


244  THE  LAW. 

still  perpetrated,  and  even,  in  a  social  point  of 
view,  under  aggravated  circumstances.  In  this 
case,  however,  he  who  profits  from  the  plunder  is 
not  responsible  for  it ;  it  is  the  law,  the  lawgiver, 
society  itself,  and  this  is  where  the  political  danger 
lies. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  there  is  something 
offensive  in  the  word.  I  have  sought  in  vain  for 
another,  for  I  would  not  wish  at  any  time  to  add 
an  irritating  word  to  our  dissensions ;  therefore, 
whether  I  am  believed  or  not,  I  declare  that  I  do 
not  mean  to  accuse  the  intentions  nor  the  morality 
of  anybody.  I  am  attacking  an  idea  w^iich  I 
believe  to  be  false — a  system  which  appears  to  me 
to  be  unjust;  and  this  is  so  independent  of  inten- 
tions that  each  of  us  profits  by  it  without  wishing 
it,  and  suffers  from  it  without  being  aware  of  the 
cause.  Any  person  must  write  under  the  influence 
of  party  spirit  or  of  fear  who  would  call  in  ques- 
tion the  sincerity  of  the  advocates  of  protectionism, 
of  socialism,  and  even  of  communism,  which  are 
one  and  the  same  plant,  in  three  different  periods 
of  its  growth.  All  that  can  be  said  is,  that  plun- 
der is  more  visible  by  its  partiality  in  protection- 
ism,*  and   by   its   universality   in    communism ; 

*  If  protection  were  only  granted  in  a  country — as,  for 
example,  the  United  States — to  a  single  class,  to  the  cotton- 
manufactures,  for  instance,  it  would  be  so  obviously  plun- 


THE  LAW. 

whence  it  follows  that,  of  the  three  systems,  social- 
ism is  still  the  most  vague,  the  most  undefined, 
and  consequently  the  most  sincere. 

Be  it  as  it  may,  to  conclude  that  legal  plunder 
has  one  of  its  roots  in  false  philanthropy,  is  evi-^ 
dently  to  put  intentions  out  of  the  question. 

"With  this  understanding,  let  us  examine  the 
value,  the  origin,  and  the  tendency  of  this  popular 
aspiration,  which  pretends  to  realize  the  general 
good  by  general  plunder. 

The  Socialists  say,  since  the  law  organizes  jus- 
tice, why  should  it  not  organize  labor,  instruction, 
and  religion  ? 

Why  ?  Because  it  could  not  organize  labor, 
instruction,  and  religion,  without  disorganizing 
justice. 

For  remember  that  law  is  force,  and  that  con- 
sequently the  domain  of  the  law  cannot  lawfully 
extend  beyond  the  domain  of  force. 

When  laAv  and  force  keep  a  man  within  the 
bounds  of  justice,  they  impose  nothing  upon  him 
but  a  mere  negation.     They  only  oblige  liim  to 


dering  as  to  be  unable  to  maintain  itself.  But  the  fact  is, 
all  the  protected  trades  combine,  make  common  cause,  and 
recruit  themselves  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  appear  as  if 
they  included  in  their  sphere  the  whole  industry  of  the 
country.  They  feel  instinctively  that  plunder  is  disguised 
by  being  generalized. 


246  THE  LAW. 

abstain  from  doing  harm.  They  violate  neither 
his  personality,  his  liberty,  nor  his  property.  They 
only  guard  the  personality,  the  liberty,  the  prop- 
erty of  others.  They  hold  themselves  on  the 
defensive ;  they  defend  the  equal  right  of  all. 
They  fulfill  a  mission  whose  harmlessness  is  evident, 
whose  utility  is  palpable,  and  whose  legitimacy  is 
not  to  be  disputed.  This  is  so  true  that,  as  a 
friend  of  mine  once  remarked  to  me,  to  say  that 
the  aim,  of  the  law  is  to  cause  justice  to  reign,  is 
to  use  an  expression  which  is  not  rigorously  exact. 
It  ought  to  be  said,  the  aim  of  the  law  is  to  jpi^event 
injustice  from  reigning.  In  fact,  it  is  not  justice 
which  has  an  existence  of  its  own,  it  is  injustice. 
The  one  results  from  the  absence  of  the  other. 

But  when  the  law,  through  the  medium  of  its 
necessary  agent — force,  imposes  a  form  of  labor, 
a  method  or  a  subject  of  instruction,  a  creed  or  a 
worship,  it  is  no  longer  negative  ;  it  acts  positively 
upon  men.  It  substitutes  the  will  of  the  legislator 
for  their  own  will,  the  initiative  of  the  legislator 
for  their  own  initiative.  Tlie}^  have  no  need  to 
consult,  to  compare,  or  to  foresee ;  the  law  does 
all  that  for  them.  The  intellect  is  for  them  a  use- 
less lumber ;  they  cease  to  be  men ;  they  lose  their 
personality,  their  liberty  their  property. 

Endeavor  to  imagine  a  form  of  labor  imposed 
by  force  which  is  not  a  violation  of  liberty;  a 


THE  LAW.  247 

[transmission  of  wealth  imposed  by  force  which  is 
not  a  violation  of  propert3^  If  you  cannot  succeed 
in  reconciling  this,  you  are  bound  to  conclude  that 
the  law  cannot  organize  labor  and  industry  without 
organizing  injuF.tice. 

When,  from  the  seclusion  of  his  cabinet,  a  poli- 
tician takes  a  view  of  society,  he  is  struck  with  the 
spectacle  of  inequality  which  presents  itself.  He 
mourns  over  the  sufferings  which  are  the  lot  of  so 
many  of  our  brethren,  sufferings  whose  aspect  is 
rendered  yet  more  sorrowful  by  the  contrast  of 
luxury  and  wealth. 

He  ought,  perhaps,  to  ask  himself  whether  such 
a  social  state  has  not  been  caused  by  the  plunder 
of  ancient  times,  exercised  in  the  way  of  con- 
quests; and  by  plunder  of  later  times,  effected 
through  the  medium  of  the  laws?  He  ought  to  ask 
himself  whether,  granting  the  aspiration  of  all  men 
after  well-being  and  perfection,  the  reign  of  jus- 
tice would  not  suffice  to  realize  the  greatest  activ- 
ity of  progress,  and  the  greatest  amount  of  equality 
compatible  with  that  individual  responsibility 
which  God  has  awarded  as  a  just  retribution  of 
virtue  and  vice  ? 

He  never  gives  this  a  thought.  His  mind  turns 
toward  combinations,  arrangements,  legal  or  fac- 
titious organizations.  He  seeks  the  remedy  in 
perpetuating  and  exaggerating  what  has  produced 
the  evil. 


248  THE  LA.W. 

For,  justice  apart,  wliicli  we  have  seen  is  only 
a  negation,  is  there  any  one  of  these  legal  arrange- 
ments which  does  not  contain  the  principle  of 
plunder  ? 

You  say,  "  There  are  men  who  have  no  money," 
and  you  apply  to  the  law.  But  the  law  is  not  a 
self-supplied  fountain,  whence  every  stream  may 
obtain  supplies  independently  of  society.  Nothing 
can  enter  the  public  treasury,  in  favor  of  one 
citizen  or  one  class,  but  what  other  citizens  and 
other  classes  have  h^en  forced  to  send  to  it.  If 
every  one  draws  from  it  only  the  equivalent  of 
what  he  has  contributed  to  it,  your  law,  it  is  true, 
is  no  plunderer,  but  it  does  nothing  for  men  who 
want  money — it  does  not  promote  equality.  It 
can  only  be  an  instrument  of  equalization  as  far 
as  it  takes  from  one  party  to  give  to  another,  and 
then  it  is  an  instrument  of  plunder.  Examine,  in 
this  light,  the  protection  of  tariffs,  prizes  for  en- 
couragement, right  to  profit,  right  to  labor,  right 
to  assistance,  right  to  instruction,  progressive  taxa- 
tion, gratuitousness  of  credit,  social  workshops, 
and  you  will  always  find  at  the  bottom  legal 
plunder,  organized  injustice. 

You  sa}',  "  There  are  men  who  want  knowl- 
edge," and  you  apply  to  the  law.  Bat  the  law 
is  not  a  torch  wliich  sheds  light  abroad  which  is 
peculiar  to  itself.     It  extends  over  a  society  where 


THE  LAW.  24:9 

there  are  men  who  have  knowledge,  and  others 
who  have  not;  citizens  who  want  to  learn,  and 
others  who  are  disposed  to  teach.  It  can  only  do 
one  of  two  things :  either  allow  a  free  scope  to  this 
kind  of  transaction,  i.e.,  let  this  kind  of  want 
satisfy  itself  freely ;  or  else  force  the  will  of  the 
people  in  the  matter,  and  take  from  some  of  them 
sufficient  to  pay  professors  commissioned  to  in- 
struct others  gratuitously.  But,  in  this  second 
case,  there  cannot  fail  to  be  a  violation  of  liberty 
and  property — legal  plunder. 

You  say,  "  Here  are  men  who  are  wanting  in 
morality  or  religioUj"  and  you  apply  to  the  law ; 
but  law  is  force,  and  need  I  say  how  far  it  is  a 
violent  and  absurd  enterprise  to  introduce  force  in 
these  matters  ? 

As  the  result  of  its  systems  and  of  its  efforts,  it 
would  seem  that  socialism,  notwithstanding  all  its 
self-complacency,  can  scarcely  help  perceiving  the 
monster  of  legal  plunder.  But  what  does  it  do  ? 
It  disguises  it  cleverl}^  from  others,  and  even  from 
itself,  under  the  seductive  names  of  fraternity, 
solidarity,  organization,  association.  And  because 
we  do  not  ask  so  much  at  the  liands  of  the  law, 
because  we  only  ask  it  for  justice,  it  supposes  that 
we  reject  fraternity,  solidarity,  organization,  and 
association  ;  and  they  brand  us  with  the  name  of 
individualists. 


250  THE  LAW. 

We  can  assure  them  that  what  we  repudiate  is, 
not  natural  organization,  but  forced  organization. 

It  is  not  free  association,  but  the  forms  of  asso- 
ciatioQ  which  they  w^ould  impose  upon  us. 
'  It  is  not  spontaneous  fraternity,  but  legal  frater- 
nity. 

It  is  not  providential  solidarity,  but  artificial 
solidarity,  which  is  only  an  unjust  displacement  of 
responsibility. 

Socialism,  like  the  old  policy  from  which  it  ema- 
nates, confounds  Government  and  society.  And 
so,  every  time  we  object  to  a  thing  being  done  by 
Government,  it  concludes  tliat  we  object  to  its 
being  done  at  all.  We  disapprove  of  education 
by  the  State — then  we  are  against  education  alto- 
gether. We  object  to  a  State  religion — then  we 
would  have  no  religion  at  all.  We  object  to  an 
equality  which  is  brought  about  by  the  State — 
then  we  are  against  equality  etc.,  etc.  They 
might  as  well  accuse  us  of  wisliing  men  not  to  eat, 
because  we  object  to  the  cultivation  of  corn  by 
the  State. 

How  is  it  that  the  strange  idea  of  making  the 
law  produce  what  it  does  not  contain — prosperity, 
in  a  positive  sense,  wealtli,  science,  religion — shoidd 
ever  have  gained  ground  in  the  political  world  ? 
The  modern  politicians,  particularly  those  of  the 
Socialist  school,  found  their  different  theories  upon 


THE  LAW.  251 

one  common  hypothesis ;  and  sm-ely  a  more  strange, 
a  more  presumptuous  notion,  could  never  have 
entered  a  human  brain. 

They  divide  mankind  into  two  parts.  Men  in 
general,  except  one,  form  the  first ;  the  politician 
himself  forms  the  second,  which  is  by  far  the  most 
important. 

In  fact,  they  begin  by  supposing  that  men  are 
devoid  of  any  principle  of  action,  and  of  any 
means  of  discernment  in  themselves;  that  they 
have  no  moving  spring  in  them ;  that  they  are 
inert  matter,  passive  particles,  atoms  without  im- 
pulse ;  at  best  a  vegetation  indifferent  to  its  own 
mode  of  existence,  susceptible  of  receiving,  from  an 
exterior  will  and  hand,  an  infinite  number  of  forms? 
more  or  less  symmetrical,  artistic,  and  perfected. 

Moreover,  every  one  of  these  politicians  does 
not  scruple  to  imagine  that  he  himself  is,  under 
the  names  of  organizer,  discoverer,  legislator,  in- 
stitntor  or  founder,  this  will  and  hand,  this  uni- 
versal spring,  this  creative  power,  whose  sublime 
mission  it  is  to  gather  together  these  scattered 
materials,  that  is,  men  into  society. 

Starting  from  these  data,  as  a  gardener,  accord- 
ing to  his  caprice,  shapes  his  trees  into  pyramids, 
parasols,  cubes,  cones,  vases,  distaffs,  or  fans ;  so 
the  Socialist,  following  his  chimera,  shapes  poor 
hmnanity  into  groups,  series,  circles,  subcircleSj 


252  THE  LAW. 

lioneycombs,  or  social  workshops,  with  all  kinds  of 
variations.  And  as  the  gardener,  to  bring  liis 
trees  into  shape,  wants  hatchets,  praning-hooks, 
saws,  and  shears,  so  the  politician,  to  bring  society 
into  shape,  wants  the  forces  which  he  can  only- 
find  in  the  laws ;  the  law  of  customs,  the  law  of 
taxation,  the  law  of  assistance,  and  the  law  of  in- 
struction. 

It  is  so  true  that  the  Socialists  look  upon  man- 
kind as  a  subject  for  social  combinations,  that  if, 
by  chance,  they  are  not  quite  certain  of  tlie  success 
of  these  combinations,  they  will  request  a  portion 
of  mankind  as  ^  subject  to  experiment  upon.  It 
is  well  known  how  popular  the  idea  of  trying  all 
systems  is,  and  one  of  the  French  Socialists  once 
seriously  demanded  of  the  French  Constituent 
Assembly  a  parish,  with  all  its  inhabitants,  upon 
which  to  make  his  experiments. 

It  is  thus  that  an  inventor  will  make  a  small 
machine  before  he  makes  one  of  the  regular  'size. 
Thus  the  chemist  sacrifices  some  substances,  the 
agriculturist  some  seed  and  a  corner  of  his  field, 
to  make  trial  of  an  idea. 

But,  then,  think  of  the  immeasurable  distance 
between  the  gardener  and  his  trees,  between  the 
inventor  and  his  machine,  between  the  chemist 
and  his  substances,  between  the  agriculturist  and 
his  seed !    The  Socialist  thinks,  in  all  sincerity, 


THE  LAW.  253 

that  there  is  the  game  distance  between  himself 
and  mankind. 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  politicians 
of  the  nineteenth  century  look  upon  society  as 
an  artificial  production  of  the  legislator's  genius. 
This  idea  has  taken  possession  of  many  thinkers 
and  great  writers  in  all  countries. 

To  all  these  persons  the  relations  between  man- 
kind and  the  legislator  appear  to  be  the  same  as 
those  which  exist  between  the  clay  and  the  potter. 

Moreover,  if  they  hav^e  consented  to  recognize 
in  the  heart  of  man  a  principle  of  action,  and  in 
his  intellect  a  principle  of  discernment,  they  have 
looked  upon  these  gifts  of  God  as  pernicious,  and 
thought  that  mankind,  under  these  two  impulses, 
tended  fatally  toward  ruin.  They  have  taken  it 
for  granted  that,  if  abandoned  to  their  own  incli- 
nations, men  would  only  occupy  themselves  with 
religion  to  arrive  at  atheism,  Avith  instruction  to 
come  to  ignorance,  and  with  labor  and  exchange 
to  be  extinguished  in  misery. 

Happily,  according  to  these  writers,  there  are 
some  men,  termed  governors  and  legislators,  upon 
whom  Heaven  has  bestowed  opposite  tendencies, 
not  for  their  own  sake  only,  but  for  the  sak-e  of 
the  rest  of  the  world. 

Whilst  mankind  tends  to  evil,  they  incline  to 
good ;  whilst  mankind  is  advancing  toward  dark- 


254  THE  LAW. 

ness,  they  are  aspiring  to  enlightenment ;  whilst 
nianlvind  is  drawm  toward  vice,  they  are  attracted 
by  virtue.  And,  this  granted,  thej  demand  the 
assistance  of  force,  by  means  of  which  tliey  are  to 
substitute  their  own  tendencies  for  those  of  the 
human  race. 

It  is  only  needful  to  open,  almost  at  random,  a 
book  on  philosophy,  politics,  or  history,  to  see  how 
strongly  this  idea  is  rooted  in  literature ;  that 
mankind  is  merely  inert  matter,  receiving  life, 
organization,  morality,  and  wealth  from  power; 
or,  rather,  and  still  worse — that  mankind  itself 
tends  toward  degradation,  and  is  only  arrested  in 
its  tendency  by  the  mysterious  hand  of  the  legis- 
lator. Classical  conventionalism  show^s  us  every- 
where, behind  passive  society,  a  hidden  power, 
under  the  names  of  Law,  or  Legislator  (or,  by  a 
mode  of  expression  wliich  refers  to  some  person 
or  persons  of  undisputed  weiglit  and  authority, 
but  not  named),  which  moves,  animates,  enriches, 
and  regenerates  mankind. 

We  will  first  ask  attention  to  a  quotation  from 
Bossuet : — 

*'  One  of  tlie  things  wliich  was  the  most  strongly  impressed 
(by  whom  ?)  upon  the  mind  of  the  Egyptians,  was   the  love 

of    their  country Nobody  was   allowed    to    be 

useless  to  the  State;  the  law  assigned  to  every  one  his  em- 
ployment, which  descended  from  father  to  son.  No  one  waa 
permitted  to  have  two  professions,  nor  to  adopt  another. 


THE  LAW.  255 

But  there  was  one  occupation  wliicli  was  obliged 
to  be  common  to  all — this  was  the  study  of  the  laws  and  of 
wisdom  ;  ignorance  of  religion  and  the  political  regulations 
of  the  country  was  excused  in  no  condition  of  life.  More- 
over, every  profession  had  a  district  assigned  to  it  (by  whom  ?). 

Amongst  good  laws,  one  of  the  best  things  was 

that  everybody  was  taught  to  observe  them  (by  whom  ?). 
Egypt  abounded  with  wonderful  inventions,  and  nothing  was 
neglected  which  could  render  life  comfortable  and  tranquil." 

Thus  men,  according  to  Bossuet,  derive  noth- 
ing from  tliemselves  ;  patriotism,  wealth,  inven- 
tions, husbandry,  science — all  come  to  them  by 
the  operation  of  the  laws,  or  by  kings.  All  they 
have  to  do  is  to  be  passive.  It  is  on  this  ground 
that  Bossuet  takes  exception,  when  Diodorus  ac- 
cuses the  Egyptians  of  rejecting  wrestling  and 
music.  "  How  is  that  possible,"  says  he,  "  since 
these  arts  were  invented  by  Trismegistus?  " 

It  is  the  same  with  the  Persians : — 

"One  of  the  first  cares  of  the  prince  was  to  encourage 

agriculture As  there  were  posts  established 

for  the  regulation  of  the  armies,  so  there  were  offices  for  the 

superintending  of  rural  works The  respect 

with  which  the  Persians  were  inspired  for  royal  authority 
was  excessive." 

Tlie  Greeks,  although  full  of  mind,  were  no  less 
strangers  to  their  own  responsibilities;  so  much 
60,  that  of  themselves,  like  dogs  and  horses,  they 
would  not  have  ventured  upon  the  most  simple 
games.     In  a  classical  sense,  it  is  an  undisputed 


256  THE  LAW. 

thing  that  everything  comes  to  the  people  from 
without. 

"  Tlie  Greeks,  Daturally  full  of  spirit  and  courage,  had 
heen  early  cultivated  by  kings  and  colonies  wlio  had  come 
from  Egypt.     From  them  they  had  learned  the  exercises  of 

the  body,  foot  races,  and  horse  and  chariot  races 

The  best  thin,g  tliat  the  Egyptians  had  taught  them  was  to 
become  docile,  and  to  allow  themselves  to  be  formed  by  the 
law's  for  the  public  good." 

Ftnelon. — Reared  in  tlie  stnclj  and  admiration 
of  antiquity,  and  a  witness  of  the  power  of  Louis 
XIV.,  Fenelon  naturally  adopted  the  idea  that 
mankind  should  he  passive,  and  that  its  misfor- 
tunes and  its  prosperities,  its  virtues  and  its  vices, 
are  caused  hy  the  external  influence  which  is  ex- 
ercised upon  it  by  tjie  lav),  or  by  the  makers  of 
the  law.  Thus,  in  his  Utopia  of  Salentum,  he 
brings  the  men,  with  their  interests,  their  facul- 
ties, their  desires,  and  their  possessions,  under  the 
absolute  direction  of  the  legislator.  Whatever 
the  subject  may  be,  they  themselves  have  no 
voice  in  it — the  prince  judges  for  them.  The 
nation  is  just  a  shapeless  mass,  of  which  the 
prince  is  the  soul.  In  him  resides  the  thought, 
the  foresight,  the  principle  of  all  organization,  of 
all  progress ;  on  him,  therefore,  rests  all  the  re- 
sponsibility. 

In  proof  of  this  assertion,  I  might  transcribe 
the  whole  of  the  tenth  book  of  "  Telemachus.'' 


THE  LAW.  257 

I  refer  the  reader  to  it,  and  shall  content  myself 
with  quoting  some  passages  taken  at  random  from 
this  celebrated  woi'k,  to  which,  in  every  other  re- 
spect, I  am  most  ready  to  render  justice. 

With  the  astonishing  credulity  which  character- 
izes the  classics,  Fenelon,  against  the  authority  of 
reason  and  of  facts,  admits  the  general  felicity  of 
the  Egyptians,  and  attributes  it,  not  to  their  own 
wisdom,  but  to  tliat  of  their  kings: — 

"  We  could  not  turn  our  eyes  to  tlie  two  shores  without 
perceiving  rich  towns  and  country  seats,  agreeably  situated  ; 
fields  which  were  covered  every  year,  without  intermission, 
Avith  golden  crops  ;  meadows  full  of  flocks  ;  laborers  bending 
under  the  weight  of  fruits  which  the  earth  lavished  on  its 
cultivators ;  and  shepherds  who  made  the  echoes  around 
repeat  the  soft  sounds  of  their  pipes  and  flutes.  *  Happy,* 
said  Mentor,  *  is  that  people  which  is  governed  by  a  wise  king. 

Mentor  afterwards  desired  me  to  remark  the 

happiness  and  abundance  which  was  spread  over  all  the 
country  of  Egypt,  where  twenty-two  thousand  cities  might  be 
counted.  He  admired  the  excellent  police  regulations  of  the 
cities;  the  justice  administered  in  favor  of  the  poor  against 
the  rich  ;  the  good  education  of  the  children,  who  were  accus- 
tomed to  obedience,  labor,  and  the  love  of  arts  and  letters  ; 
the  exactness  with  which  all  the  ceremonies  of  religion  were 
performed ;  the  disinterestedness,  the  desire  of  honor,  the 
fidelity  to  men,  and  the  fear  of  the  gods,  with  which  every 
father  inspired  his  children.  He  could  not  sufficiently  ad- 
mire the  prosperous  state  of  the  country.  *  Happy'  said  he, 
*  is  the  people  whom  a  wise  Icing  rules  in  such  a  manner.'  " 

Fenelon's  idyl  on  Crete  is  still  more  fascinating 
Mentor  is  made  to  say  : — 


258  THE  LAW. 

*'  All  that  you  will  see  in  tliis  wonderful  island  is  tlie  re- 
sult of  the  laws  of  Minos.  The  education  which  the  children 
receive  renders  the  body  healthy  and  robust.  They  are  ac- 
customed, from  the  first,  to  a  frugal  and  laborious  life  ;  it  is 
supposed  that  all  the  pleasures  of  sense  enervate  the  body 
and  the  mind  ;  no  other  pleasure  is  presented  to  them  but 
that  of  being  invincible  by  virtue,  that  of  acquiring  much 

glory there  they  punish  three  vices  which  go 

unpunished  amongst  other  people — ingratitude,  dissimula- 
tion, and  avarice.  As  to  pomp  and  dissipation,  there  is 
no  need  to  punish  these,  for  they  are  unknown  in  Crete. 

No  costly  furniture,  no  magnificent  clothing, 

no  delicious  feasts,  no  gilded  palaces  are  allowed." 

It  is  thus  that  Mentor  prepares  liis  scholar  to 
mould  and  manipulate,  doubtless  with  the  most 
philanthropic  intentions,  the  people  of  Ithaca, 
and,  to  confirm  him  in  these  ideas,  he  gives  him 
the  example  of  Salentum. 

It  is  thus  that  we  receive  our  iirst  political 
notions.  We  are  taught  to  treat  men  very  much 
as  Oliver  de  Serres  teaches  farmers  to  manage 
and  to  mix  the  soil. 

Montesquieu. — **To  sustain  tl\,e  spirit  of  commerce,  it  is 
necessary  that  all  the  laws  should  favor  it  ;  that  these  same 
lawSt  by  their  regulations  in  dividing  the  fortunes  in  pro- 
portion as  commerce  enlarges  them,  should  place  every  poor 
citizen  in  sufficiently  easy  circumstances  to  enable  him  to 
work  like  the  others,  and  every  rich  citizen  in  such  medioc- 
rity that  he  must  work,  in  order  to  retain  or  to  acquire." 

Thus  the  laws  are  to  dispose  of  all  fortunes. 
"Although,  in  a  democracy,  real  equality  is  the  soul  of 


THE  LAW.  259 

the  State,  yet  it  is  so  difficult  to  establisli,  that  an  extreme 
exactness  in  this  matter  would  not  always  be  desirable.  It 
is  sufficient  that  a  census  be  established  to  reduce  or  fix 
the  differences  to  a  certain  point.  After  which  it  is  for 
particular  laws  to  equalize,  as  it  were,  the  inequality,  by 
burdens  imposed  upon  the  rich,  and  reliefs  granted  to  the 
poor." 

Here,  again,  we  see  the  equalization  of  fortunes 
bj  law,  that  is,  by  force. 

"  There  were,  in  Greece,  two  kinds  of  republics.  One  was 
military,  as  Lacedaemon ;  the  other  commercial,  as  Athens. 
In  the  one  it  was  wished  (by  whom  ?)  that  the  citizens 
should  be  idle  :  in  the  other,  the  love  of  labor  was  encour- 
aged. 

"  It  is  worth  our  while  to  pay  a  little'  attention  to  the  ex- 
tent of  genius  required  by  these  legislators,  that  we  may  see 
how,  by  confounding  all  the  virtues,  they  showed  their 
wisdom  to  the  world.  Lycurgus,  blending  theft  with  the 
spirit  of  justice,  the  hardest  slavery  with  extreme  liberty, 
the  most  atrocious  sentiments  with  the  greatest  moderation, 
gave  stability  to  his  city.  He  seemed  to  deprive  it  of  all  its 
resources,  arts,  commerce,  money,  and  walls  ;  there  was  am- 
bition  without  the  hope  of  rising  ;  there  were  natural  senti- 
ments where  the  individual  was  neither  child,  nor  husband, 
nor  father.  Chastity  even  was  deprived  of  modesty.  By 
this  road  Sparta  was  led  on  to  grandeur  and  to  glory. 

"  The  phenomenon  which  we  observe  in  the  institutions  of 
Greece  has  been  seen  in  the  midst  of  the  degeneracy  and 
corruption  of  our  modern  times.  An  honest  legislator  has 
formed  a  people  where  probity  has  appeared  as  natural  as 
bravery  among  the  Spartans.  William  Penn  was  a  true 
Lycurgus  ;  and  although  the  former  had  peace  for  his  ob- 
ject, and  the  latter  war,  they  resemble  each  other  in  tlie 
singular  path  along  which  they  have  led  their  people,  iu 


260  THE  LAW. 

their  influence  over  free  men,  in  the  prejudices  which  they 
have  overcome,  the  passions  they  have  subdued. 

"  Paraguay  furnishes  us  with  another  example.  Society 
has  been  accused  of  the  crime  of  regarding  the  pleasure  of 
commanding  as  the  only  good  of  life  ;  but  it  will  always  be 
a  noble  thing  to  govern  men  by  making  them  happy. 

"  Those  iclio  desire  to  form  similar  institutions,  will  estab- 
lish community  of  property,  as  in  the  republic  of  Plato  ;  the 
same  reverence  which  he  enjoined  for  the  gods,  separation 
from  strangers  for  the  preservation  of  morality,  and  make 
the  city  and  not  the  citizens  creat-e  commerce :  they  should 
give  our  arts  without  our  luxury,  our  wants  without  our 
desires." 

Yulgar  infatnation  may  exclaim,  if  it  likes : 
"  It  is  Montesquieu  !  magniiicent !  sublime  !  "  I 
am  not  afraid  to  express  my  opinion,  and  to  say  : 
*'  Wliat !  you  have  the  face  to  call  that  fine  ? 
It  is  frightful !  it  is  abominable !  and  these  ex- 
tracts, whicli  I  might  multiply,  show  that,  accord- 
ing to  Montesquieu,  the  persons,  the  liberties,  the 
property,  mankind  itself,  are  nothing  but  mate- 
rials to  exercise  the  sagacity  of  lawgivers." 

Rousseau. — Although  this  politician,  the  para- 
mount authorit}^  of  French  Democracy,  makes  the 
social  edifice  rest  upon  the  general  will,  no  one 
has  so  completely  admitted  the  hypothesis  of  the 
entire  passiveness-of  human  nature  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  lawgiver : — 

"  If  it  is  true  that  a  great  prince  is  a  rare  thing,  how 
much  more  so  must  a  great  lawgiver  be  ?    The  former  has 


THE  LAW.  2G1 

only  to  follow  the  pattern  proposed  to  liim  by  tlie  latter. 
This  latter  U  the  mechanician  who  invents  the  machine  ;  the 
former  is  merely  the  workman  who  Bets  it  in  motion." 

And  what  part  have  men  to  act  in  all  this  ? 
That  of  the  macliine,  which  is  set  in  motion  ;  or, 
rather,  are  they  not  tlie  brute  matter  of  which  the 
machine  is  made?  Thus,  between  the  legislator 
and  the  prince,  between  the  prince  and  his  sub- 
jects, there  are  the  same  relations  as  those  which 
exist  between  the  agricultural  writer  and  the 
agriculturist,  the  agriculturist  and  the  clod.  At 
what  a  vast  height,  then,  is  the  politician  placed, 
who  rules  over  legislators  themselves,  and  teaches 
them  their  trade  in  such  imperative  terms  as  the 
following  :-'— 

"Would  you  give  consistency  to  the  State?  Bring  the 
extremes  together  as  much  as  possible.  Suffer  neither 
wealthy  persons  nor  beggars. 

"♦If  the  soil  is  poor  and  barren,  or  the  country  too  much 
confined  for  the  inliabitants,  turn  to  industry  and  the  arts, 
whose  productions  you  will  exchange  for  the  provisions  which 

you  require On  a  good  soil,  if  you  are  short 

of  inhabitants,  give  all  your  attention  to  agriculture,  which 
multiplies  men,  and  banish  the  arts,  which  only  serve  to  de- 
populate the  country Pay  attention  to  exten- 
sive and  convenient  coasts.  Cover  the  sea  with  vessels,  and 
you  will  have  a  brilliant  and  short  existence.  If  your  seas 
wash  only  inaccessible  rocks,  let  the  people  he  barbarous,  and 
eat  fish  ;  they  will  live  more  quietly,  perhaps  better,  and, 
most  certainly,  more  happily.  In  short,  besides  those  maxims 
which  are  common  to  all,  every  people  has  its  own  particu- 


262  THE  LAW. 

lar  circumstances,  which  demand  a  legislation  peculiar  to 
itself. 

"It  was  thus  that  the  Hebrews  formerly,  and  the  Arabs 
more  recently,  had  religion  for  their  principal  object ; 
that  of  the  Athenians  was  literature  ;  that  of  Carthage  and 
Tyre,  commerce ;  of  Rhodes,  naval  affairs  ;  of  Sparta,  war  ; 
and  of  Rome,  virtue.  The  author  of  the  '  Spirit  of  Laws ' 
has  shown  the  art  ly  wliich  the  legislator  should  frame  his  in- 
stitutions toward  each  of  these  objects But  if 

the  legislator,  mistakin<jf  his  object,  should  take  up  a  prin- 
ciple different  from  that  which  arises  from  the  nature  of 
things  ;  if  one  should  tend  to  slavery,  and  the  other  to 
liberty ;  if  one  to  wealth,  and  the  other  to  population ;  one 
to  peace  and  the  other  to  conquests ;  the  laws  will  insen- 
sibly become  enfeebled,  the  Constitution  will  be  impaired, 
and  the  State  will  be  subject  to  incessant  agitations  until  it 
is  destroyed,  or  becomes  changed,  and  invincible  Nature 
regains  her  empire."  • 

But  if  nature  is  sufficiently  invincible  to  regain 
its  empire,  why  does  not  Rousseau  admit  that  it 
had  no  need  of  the  legislator  to  gain  its  empire 
from  the  beginning?  "Why  does  he  not  aflow 
that,  by  obeying  their  own  impulse,  men  would, 
of  themselves,  apply  agriculture  to  a  fertile  dis- 
trict, and  commerce  to  extensive  andconimodious 
coasts,  without  the  interference  of  a  Lycui'gus,  a 
Solon,  or  a  Eousseau,  who  would  undertake  it  at 
tlie  risk  of  deceiving  themselves  f 

Be  that  as  it  may,  we  see  with  what  a  terrible 
responsibility  Rousseau  invests  in-ventors,  institu- 
tors,  conductors,  and   manipulators  of   societies. 


THE  LAW.  263 

'.e  is,  therefore,  very  exacting  with  regard  to 
them. 

"  He  wlio  dares  to  undertake  tlie  institutions  of  a  people 
ought  to  feel  tliat  he  can,  as  it  were,  transform  every  indi- 
vidual, who  is  by  himself  a  perfect  and  solitary  whole,  re- 
ceiving his  life  and  being  from  a  larger  whole  of  which  he 
forms  a  part ;  he  must  feel  that  he  can  change  the  constitu- 
tion of  man,  to  fortify  it,  and  substitute  a  partial  and  moral 
existence  for  the  physical  and  independent  one  which  we 
have  all  received  from  nature.  In  a  word,  he  must  deprive 
man  of  his  own  powers,  to  give  him  others  which  are  foreign 
to  him." 

Poor  human  nature  !  What  would  become  of 
its  dignity  if  it  were  intrusted  to  the  disciples  of 
Housseau  ? 

Raynal. — "  The  climate,  that  is,  the  air  and  the  soil,  is 
the  first  element  for  the  legislator.  His  resources  prescribe 
to  him  his  duties.  First,  he  must  consult  Ids  local  position. 
A  population  dwelling  upon  maritime  shores  must  have  laws 

fitted  for  navigation If  the  colony  is  located 

in  an  inland  region,  a  legislator  must  provide  for  the  nature 
of  the  soil,  and  for  its  degree  of  fertility 

"  It  is  more  especially  in  the  distribution  of  property  that 
the  wisdom  of  legishition  will  appear.  As  a  general  rule, 
and  in  every  country,  when  a  new  colony  is  founded,  land 
should  be  given  to  each  man  sufficient  for  the  support  of 
his  family 

"  In  an  uncultivated  island,  which  you  are  colonizing 
with  children,  it  will  only  be  needful  to  let  the  germs  of 

truth  expand  in  the  developments  of  reason  ! 

But  when  yon  establish  old  people  in  a  new  country,  the 
skill  consists  in  only  allowing  it  those  injurious  opinions  and 
customs  which  it  is  impossible  to  cure  and  correct.     If  you 


264  THE  LAW. 

wish  to  prevent  tliem  from  being  perpetuated,  you  will  act 
upon  tlie  rising  generation  by  a  general  and  public  educa- 
tion of  the  children.  A  prince,  or  legislator,  ought  never  to 
found  a  colony  without  previously  sending  wise  men  there 

to  instruct  the  youth In  a  new  colony,  every 

facility  is  open  to  the  precautions  of  the  legislator  who  de- 
sires to  purify  the  tone  and  the  manners  of  the  people.  If  he 
has  genius  and  virtue,  the  lands  and  the  men  which  are  at  his 
disposal  will  inspire  his  soul  with  a  plan  of  society  which  a 
writer  can  only  vaguely  trace,  and  in  a  way  which  would  be 
subject  to  the  instability  of  all  hypotheses,  which  are  varied 
and  complicated  by  an  infinity  of  circumstances  too  difficult 
to  foresee  and  to  combine." 

One  would  think  it  was  a  professor  of  agricul- 
ture who  was  saying  to  his  pupils :  "  The  climate  is 
the  only  rule  for  the  agriculturist.  His  resources 
dictate  to  him  his  duties.  The  first  thing  he 
has  to  consider  is  his  local  position.  If  he  is  on 
a  clayey  soil,  he  must  do  so  and  so.  If  he  has  to 
contend  with  sand,  this  is  the  way  in  which  he 
must  set  about  it.  Every  facility  is  open  to  the 
agriculturist  who  wishes  to  clear  and  improve  his 
soil.  If  he  only  has  the  skill,  the  manure  which 
he  has  at  his  disposal  will  suggest  to  him  a  plan 
of  operation,  which  a  professor  can  only  A-aguely 
trace,  and  in  a  way  that  would  be  subject  to  the 
uncertainty  of  all  hypotheses,  which  vary  and  are 
complicated  by  an  infinity  of  circumstances  too 
difficult  to  foresee  and  to  combine." 

But,  oh!  sublime  writers,  deign  to  remember 


THE  LAW.  '  265 

sometimes  tliat  this  claj,  this  sand,  tliis  manure, 
of  which  you  are  disposing  in  so  arbitrary  a  man- 
ner, are  men,  your  equals,  intelligent  and  free 
beings  like  yourselves,  who  have  received  from 
God,  as  you  have,  the  faculty  of  seeing,  of  fore- 
seeing, of  thinking,  and  of  judging  for  them- 
selves ! 

Mcibly. — (He  is  supposing  the  laws  to  be  worn 
out  by  time  and  by  the  neglect  of  security,  and 
continues  thus) : — 

"  Under  tliese  circumstances  we  must  be  convinced  that 
the  springs  of  Government  are  relaxed.  Oixie  them,  a  new 
tension  (it  is  the  reader  who  is  addressed),  and  the  evil  will 

he   remedied Think   less  of  punishing  the 

faults  than  of  encouraging  the  virtues  wliicli  you  want.  By 
this  method  you  will  bestow  upon  your  republic  the  vigor  of 
youth.  Tlirough  ignorance  of  this,  a  free  people  has  lost  its 
liberty  !  But  if  the  evil  has  made  so  much  way  that  the 
ordinary  magistrates  are  unable  to  remedy  it  effectually,  have 
recourse  to  an  extraordinary  magistracy,  whose  time  should 
be  short,  and  its  power  considerable.  The  imagination  of  the 
citizens  requires  to  be  impressed." 

In  this  style  he  goes  on  through  twenty  vol- 
umes. 

There  was  a  time  when,  under  the  influence  of 
teaching  like  this,  which  is  the  root  of  classical 
education,  every  one  was  for  placing  himself  be- 
yond and  above  mankind,  for  the  sake  of  arrang- 
ing, organizing,  and  instituting  it  in  his  own  way. 

Condillac. — "Take  upon  yourself,  my  lord,  the  charactet 
12 


266  THE  LAW. 

of  Lycurgus  or  of  Solon.  Before  you  finish  reading  tliis 
essay,  amuse  yourself  with  giving  laws  to  some  wild  people 
in  America  or  in  Africa.    Establish  these  roving  men  in  fixed 

dwellings  ;  teach  them  to  keep  flocks Endeavor 

to  develop  the  social  qualities  which  nature  has  implanted  in 

them Make  them  begin  to  practice  the  duties 

of    humanity Cause  the   pleasures   of    the 

passions  to  become  distasteful  to  them  by  punishments,  and 
you  will  see  these  barbarians,  with  every  plan  of  your  legis- 
lation, lose  a  vice  and  gain  a  virtue. 

•*  All  these  people  have  had  laws.  But  few  among  them 
have  been  happy.  Why  is  this  ?  Becaiuse  legislators  have 
almost  always  been  ignorant  of  the  object  of  society,  which 
is,  to  unite  families  by  a  common  interest. 

"  Impartiality  in  law  consists  in  two  thii]gs  :  in  establish- 
ing equality  in  the  fortunes  and  in  the  dignity  of  the  citizens. 
In  proportion  to  the  degree  of  equality  estab- 
lished by  the  laws,  the  dearer  will  they  become  to  every 

citizen How  can  avarice,  ambition,  dissipation 

idleness,  sloth,  envy,  hatred,  or  jealousy,  agitate  men   who 

are  equal  in  fortune  and  dignity,  and  to  whom  the  laws  leave 

no  hope  of  disturbing  their  equality  ? 

,  "  What  has  been  told  you  of  the  republic  of  Sparta  ought 

to  enlighten  you  on  this  question.     No  other  State  has  had 

laws  more  in  accordance  with  the  order  of  nature   or   of 

equality." 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries  should  have  looked  upon 
the  human  race  as  inert  matter,  ready  to  receive 
everything,  form,  figure,  impulse,  movement,  and 
life,  from  a  great  prince,  or  a  great  legislator,  or  a 
great  genius.  These  ages  were  reared  in  the  study 
of  antiquity,  and  antiquity  presents  everywhere,  in 


THE  LAW.  267 

]gypt,  Persia,  Greece,  and  Kome,  the  spectacle  of  a 
few  men  moulding  mankind  according  to  their 
fancy,  and  mankind  to  this  end  enslaved  by  force  or 
by  imposture.  And  what  does  this  prove  ?  That 
because  men  and  society  are  improvable,  error,  igno- 
rance, despotism,  slavery,  and  superstition  must  be 
more  prevalent  in  early  times.  The  mistake  of 
the  writers  quoted  above  is  not  that  they  have  as- 
serted this  fact,  but  that  they  have  proposed  it,  as 
a  rule,  for  the  admiration  and  imitation  of  future 
generatiions.  Their  mistake  has  been,  with  an  in- 
conceivable absence  of  discernment,  and  upon  the 
faith  of  a  puerile  conventionalism,  that  they  have 
admitted  what  is  inadmissible,  viz.,  the  grandeur, 
dignity,  morality,  and  well-being  of  the  artificial 
societies  of  the  ancient  world  ;  they  have  not  under- 
stood that  time  produces  and  spreads  enlighten- 
ment ;  and  that  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of 
enlightenment,  right  ceases  to  be  upheld  by  force, 
and  society  regains  possession  of  herself. 

And,  in  fact,  what  is  the  political  work  which 
we  are  endeavoriirg  to  promote  ?  It  is  no  other 
than  the  instinctive  effort  of  every  people  toward 
liberty.  And  what  is  liberty,  whose  name  can 
make  every  heart  beat,  and  which  can  agitate  the 
world,  but  the  union  of  all  liberties,  the  liberty  of 
conscience,  of  instruction,  of  association,  of  the 
press,  of  locomotion,  of  labor,  and  of  exchange  ;  in 


268  THE   LAW. 

other  vroi-cls,  the  free  exercise,  for  all,  of  all  the 
inoffensive  faculties;  and  again,  in  other  words, 
the  destruction  of  all  despotisms,  even  of  legal 
despotism,  and  the  reduction  of  law  to  its  only 
rational  sphere,  which  is  to  regulate  the  individual 
right  of  legitimate  defense,  or  to  repress  injustice. 

This  tendency  of  the  human  race,  it  must  be 
admitted,  is  greatly  thwarted,  particularly  in. 
France,  by  the  fatal  disposition  common  to  all 
politicians,  of  placing  themselv^es  beyond  mankind, 
to  arrano^e,  ororanize,  and  re2:ulate  it,  accordins:  to 
their  fancy. 

For  whilst  society  is  struggling  to  realize  liberty, 
the  great  men  who  place  themselves  at  its  head, 
imbued  with  the  principles  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  think  only  of  subjecting  it  to 
the  philanthropic  despotism  of  their  social  inven- 
tions, and  making  it  bear  with  docility,  according 
to  the  expression  of  Housseau,  the  yoke  of  public 
felicity,  as  pictured  in  their  own  imaginations. 

This  was  particularly  the  case  in  France  in  1789. 
"No  sooner  was  the  old  system  destroyed,  than 
society  was  to  be  submitted  to  other  artificial 
arrangements,  always  with  the  same  starting-point 
— the  omnipotence  of  the  law. 

Saint  Just. — "The  legislator  commands  tlie  future.  It  is 
for  him  to  wiU  for  the  good  of  mankind.  It  is  for  him  to 
make  men  what  he  wishes  them  to  be." 


THE  LAW.  269 

Robespierre. — "  The  function  of  Government  is  to  direct  the 
physical  and  moral  powers  of  the  nation  toward  the  object 
of  its  institution." 

Billaud  Varennes. — "  A  people  who  are  to  be  restored  to 
liberty  must  be  formed  anew.  Ancient  prejudices  must  be 
destroyed,  antiquated  customs  changed,  depraved  affections 
corrected,  inveterate  vices  eradicated.  For  this  a  strong  force 
and  a  vehement  impulse  will  be  necessary Citi- 
zens, the  inflexible  austerity  of  Lycurgus  created  the  firm 
basis  of  tlie  Spartan  republic.  The  feeble  and  trusting  dispo- 
sition of  Solon  plunged  Athens  into  slavery.  This  parallel 
contains  the  whole  science  of  Government." 

Lepelletier. — "  Considering  the  extent  of  human  degrada- 
tion, I  am  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  effecting  an  entire 
regeneration  of  the  race,  and,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  of 
creating  a  new  people." 

Men,^  therefore,  are  nothing  but  raw  material. 
It  is  not  for  tliem  to  will  their  own  imj^rovement. 
They  are  not  capable  of  it;  according  to  Saint 
Just,  it  is  only  the  legislator  who  is.  Men  are 
merely  to  be  what  he  wills  that  they  should  be. 
According  to  Kobespierre,  who  copies  Rousseau 
literally,  the  legislator  is  to  begin  by  assigning  the 
aim  of  the  institutions  of  the  noMon.  After  this, 
the  Government  has  only  to  direct  all  its  physical 
and  moral  forces  toward  this  end.  All  tliis  time 
the  nation  itself  is  to  remain  perfectly  passive ;  and 
Billaud  Yarennes  would  teach  us  that  it  ought  to 
have  no  prejudices,  affections,  nor  wants,  but  such 
as  are  authorized  by  the  legislator.     He  even  goes 


270  THE  LAW. 

80  far  as  to  say  that  the  inflexible  austerity  of  a 
man  is  the  basis  of  a  republic. 

We  have  seen  that,  in  cases  where  the  evil  is  so 
great  that  the  ordinary  magistrates  are  unable  to 
remedy  it,  Mably  recommends  a  dictatorship,  to 
promote  virtue.  '^  Have  recoxirse^'^  says  he,  "  to 
an  extraordinary  magistracy,  whose  time  shall  be 
short,  and  his  power  considerable.  The  imagina- 
tion of  the  people  requires  to  be  impressed.'-  This 
doctrine  has  not  bean  neo^lected.  Listen  to  Kobes- 
pierre: — 

"  The  principle  of  tlie  Republican  Government  is  virtue, 
and  the  means  to  be  adopted  during  its  establishment  is  ter- 
ror. We  want  to  substitute,  in  our  country,  morality  for 
egotism,  probity  for  honor,  principles  for  customs,  duties  for 
decorum,  the  empire  of  reason  for  the  tyranny  of  fashion, 
contempt  of  vice  for  contempt  of  misfortune,  pride  for  inso- 
lence, greatness  of  soul  for  vanity,  love  of  glory  for  love  of 
money,  good  people  for  good  company,  merit  for  intrigue, 
genius  for  v^it,  truth  for  glitter,  the  charm  of  happiness  for 
the  weariness  of  pleasure,  the  greatness  of  man  for  the  little- 
ness of  the  great,  a  magnanimous,  powerful,  happy  people 
for  one  that  is  easy,  frivolous,  degraded  ;  that  is  to  say,  we 
would  substitute  all  the  virtues  and  miracles  of  a  republic 
for  all  the  vices  and  absurdities  of  monarchy." 

At  what  a  vast  height  above  the  rest  of  mankind 
does  Kobespierre  place  himself  here  !  And  observe 
the  arrogance  witli  which  he  speaks.  He  is  not 
content  with  expressing  a  desire  for  a  great  reno- 
vation of  the  human  heart,  he  does  not  even  expect 


THE  LAW.  271 

sucli  a  result  from  a  regular  Government.     No ; 
he  intends  to  effect  it  himself,  and  by  means  of 
terror.     The  object  of  the  discourse  from  which 
this  puerile  and  laborious  mass  of  antithesis  is  ex- 
tracted was,  to  exhibit  the  principles  of  morality 
which  ought  to  direct  a  revolutionary  Government, 
Moreover,  when  Robespierre  asks  for  a  dictator- 
ship, it  is  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of  repelling 
a  foreign  enemy,  or  of  putting  down  factions ;  it 
is  that  he  may  establish,  by  means  of  terror,  and  as 
a  preliminary  to  the  game  of  the  Constitution,  his 
owm  principles  of  morality.  lie  pretends  to  nothing 
short  of  extirpating  from  the  country,  by  means 
of  terror,  egotism^  honor. customs,  decorum^ fashion^ 
vanity,  the  love  of  money,  good  company,  intrigue, 
wit,  luxury,  and  misery.     It  is  not  until  after  he, 
Robespierre,  shall  have  accomplished  these  mira- 
cles, as  he  riglitly  calls  them,  that  he  will  allow 
the  law  to  regain  her  empire.     Truly,  it  would  be 
well  if  these  visionaries — who  think  so  much  of 
themselves  and  so  little  of  mankind,  wdio  want  to 
renew  everything — would  only  be  content  with  try- 
ing to  reform  themselves;  the  task  would  be  ardu- 
ous enough  for  them.     In  general,  however,  these 
gentlemen,   the  reformers,  legislators,  and  politi- 
cians, do  not  desire  to  exercise  an  immediate  des- 
potism over  mankind.     No,  they  are  too  moderate 
Land  too  philanthropic  for  that.     They  only  con- 


272  THE  LAW. 

tend  for  the  despotism,  the  absolutism,  the  om- 
nipotence of  the  law.  They  aspire  only  to  make 
the  law. 

To  show  how  universal  this  strange  disposition 
has  been  in  France,  I  had  need  not  only  -to  liave 
copied  the  whole  of- the  works  of  Mably,  Kaynal, 
Rousseau,  Fenelon,  and  to  have  made  long  extracts 
from  Bossuet  and  Montesquieu,  but  to  have  given 
the  entire  transactions  of  the  sittings  of  the  French 
Convention  of  1789.  I  shall  do  no  such  thing, 
however,  but  merely  refer  the  reader  to  them. 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  this  idea  should 
have  suited  Buonaparte  exceedingly  well.  He 
embraced  it  with  ardor,  and  put  it  in  practice  with 
energy.  Playing  the  part  of  a  chemist,  Europe 
was  to  him  tlie  material  for  his  experiments.  But 
this  material  reacted  against  him.  More  than  half 
undeceived,  Buonaparte,  at  St.  Helena,  seemed  to 
admit  that  there  is  an  initiative  in  every  people 
and  he  became  less  hostile  to  liberty.  Yet  this  did 
not  prevent  him  from  giving  this  lesson  to  his  son 
in  his  will:  *' To  govern,  is  to  diffuse  morality, 
education,  and  well-being." 

After  all  this,  I  hardly  need  show,  by  fastidious 
quotations,  the  opinions  of  Morelly,  Babeuf,  Owen, 
Saint  Simon,  and  Fourier.  I  shall  confine  myself 
to  a  few  extracts  from  Louis  Blanc's  book  on  the 
organization  of  labor.  • 


THE  lAW.  273 

^'  In  our  project  society  receives  the  impulse  of 
power."     (Page  126.) 

In  what  does  the  impulse  which  power  gives  to 
society  consist  ?  In  imposing  upon  it  the  projeci 
of  M.  Louis  Blanc. 

On  the  other  hand,  society  is  the  human  race. 
The  human  race,  then,  is  to  receive  its  impulse 
from  M.  Louis  Blanc. 

It  is  at  liberty  to  do  so  or  not,  it  will  be  said. 
Of  course  the  human  race  is  at  liberty  to  take  ad- 
vice from  anybody,  whoever  it  may  be.  But  this 
is  not  the  way  in  which  M.  Louis  Blanc  under- 
stands the  thing.  He  means  that  his  project 
should  be  converted  into  law,  and,  consequently, 
forcibly  imposed  by  power. 

*'  In  our  project  the  State  lias  only  to  give  a  legislation  to 
labor,  by  means  of  vvliicli  tlie  industrial  movement  may  and 
ought  to  be  accomplished  in  all  liberty.  It  (the  State)  merely 
places  society  on  an  incline  {tliat  is  all)  that  it  may  descend, 
when  once  it  is  placed  there,  by  the  mere  force  of  things, 
nd  by  the  natural  course  of  the  established  mechanism."  ■ 

But  what  is  this  incline?  One  indicated  by 
.  Louis  Blanc.  Does  it  not  lead  to  an  abyss  ? 
No,  it  leads  to  happiness.  Why,  then,  does  not 
society  go  there  of  itself  ?  Because  it  does  not 
know  what  it  wants,  and  it  requires  an  impulse. 
What  is  to  give  it  this  impulse  ?  Power.  And 
who  is  to  give  the  impulse  to  power  ?  The  inven- 
tor of  the  machine,  M.  Louis  Blanc. 


^jin( 


274  THE  LAW. 

We  shall  never  get  out  of  this  circle — mankind 
passive,  and  a  great  man  moving  it  by  the  inter- 
vention of  the  law. 

Once  on  this  incline,  will  society  enjoy  some- 
thing like  liberty  ?  Without  a  doubt.  And  what 
is  liberty  ? 

"  Once  for  all,  liberty  consists,  not  only  in  the  right 
gianted.  but  in  the  power  given  to  man,  to  exercise,  to  de- 
velop his  faculties  under  the  empire  of  justice,  and  under 
the  protection  of  the  law.  ' 

"  And  this  is  no  vain  distinction  ;  there  is  a  deep  meaning 
in  it,  and  its  consequences  are  not  to  be  estimated.  For  when 
once  it  is  admitted  that  man,  to  be  truly  free,  must  have  the 
power  to  exercise  and  develop  his  faculties,  it  follows  that 
every  member  of  society  has  a  claim  upon  it  for  such  instruc- 
tion as  shall  enable  it  to  display  itself,  and  for  the  instru- 
ments of  labor,  without  which  human  activity  can  find  no 
scope.  Now,  by  whose  intervention  is  society  to  give  to  each 
of  its  members  the  requisite  instruction  and  the  necessary 
instruments  of  labor,  unless  by  that  of  the  State  ?" 

Thus,  liberty  is  power.  In  what  does  this 
power  consist  ?  In  possessing  instruction  and  in- 
struments of  labor.  Who  is  to  give  instruction 
and  instruments  of  labor  ?  Society,  who  owes 
them.  By  whose  intervention  is  society  to  give 
instruments  of  labor  to  those  who  do  not  possess 
them  ?  By  the  intervention  of  the  State,  From 
whom  is  the  State  to  obtain  them  ? 

It  is  for  the  reader  to  answer  this  question,  and 
to  notice  whither  all  this  tends. 


THE   LAW.  275 

One  of  tlie  strangest  phenomena  of  otir  time, 
and  one  which  will  probably  be  a  matter  of  aston- 
ishment to  our  descendants,  is  the  doctrine  which 
is  founded  upon  this  triple  hypothesis  :  the  radical 
passiveness  of  mankind,  the  omnipotence  of  the 
law,  the  infallibility  of  the  legislator;  this  is  the 
sacred  symbol  of  the  party  which  proclaims  itself 
exclusively  democratic. 

It  is  true  that  it  professes  also  to  be  social. 

So  far  as  it  is  democratic,  it  has  an  unlimited 
faith  in  mankind. 

So  far  as  it  is  social,  it  places  it  beneath  the  mud. 

Are  political  rights  under  discussion  ?  Is  a 
legislator  to  be  chosen  ?  Oh !  then  the  people 
possess  science  by  instinct;  they  are  gifted  with 
an  admirable  tact ;  their  willis  always  right  /  the 
general  will  cannot  err.  Suffrage  cannot  be  too 
universal,  l^obody  is  under  any  responsibility  to 
society.  The  will  and  the  capacity  to  choose  well 
are  taken  for  granted.  Can  the  people  be  mis- 
taken ?  Are  we  not  living  in  an  age  of  enlighten- 
ment ?  What !  are  the  people  to  be  always  kept 
in  leading-strings  ?  Have  they  not  acquired  their 
rights  at  the  cost  of  effort  and  sacrifice  ?  Have 
they  not  given  sufficient  proof  of  intelligence  and 
wisdom  ?  Are  they  not  arrived  at  maturity  ?  Are 
they  not  in  a  state  to  judge  for  themselves  ?  Do 
they  not  know  their  own  interest?     Is   there   a 


276  THE  LAW. 

man  or  a  class  who  would  dare  to  claim  the  right 
of  putting  himself  in  the  place  of  the  people,  of 
deciding  and  of  acting  for  them  ?  'No,  no ;  the 
people  would  be  free,  and  they  shall  be  so. 
They  wish  to  conduct  their  own  aflEairs,  and  they 
shall  do  so. 

But  when  once  the  legislator  is  duly  elected, 
then  indeed  the  style  of  his  speech  alters.  The 
nation  is  sent  back  into  passiveness,  inertness, 
nothingness,  and  the  legislator  takes  possession  of 
omnipotence.  It  is  for  him  to  inv^ent,  for  him  to 
direct,  for  him  to  impel,  for  him  to  organize. 
Mankind  has  nothing  to  do  but  to  submit ;  the 
hour  of  despotism  has  struck.  And  we  must  ob- 
serve that  this  is  decisive;  for  the  people,  just 
before  so  enlightened,  so  moral,  so  perfect,  have 
no  inclinations  at  all,  or,  if  they  have  any,  they 
all  lead  them  downwards  toward  degradation. 
And  yet  they  ought  to  have  a  little  liberty  !  But 
are  we  not  assured,  by  M.  Considerant,  that  liberty 
leads  fatally  to  monopoly  ?  Are  we  not  told  that 
liberty  is  competition,  and  that  competition,  ac- 
cording to  M.  Louis  Blanc,  is  a  system  of  extermi- 
nation for  the  people,  and  of  ruination  for  trade  f 
For  that  reason  people  are  exterminated  and  ruined 
in  proportion  as  they  are  free  ;  take,  for  example, 
Switzerland,  Holland,  England,  and  the  United 
States !     Does  not  M.  Louis  Blanc  tell  us  again 


THE  LAW.  277 

that  competition  leads  to  monopoly^  and  that^  for 
the  same  reason,  cheapness  leads  to  exorbitant 
prices  f  That  competition  tends  to  drain  the  sources 
of  consumption,  and  urges  production  to  a  destruc- 
tive activity  f ,  That  competition  forces  production 
to  increase^  and  consumption  to  decrease?  whence 
it  follows  that  free  people  produce  for  the  sake  of 
not  consuming ;  that  there  is  nothing  but  oppres- 
sion and  tnadness  among  them  ;  and  that  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  M.  Louis  Blanc  to  see 
to  it ! 

What  sort  of  liberty  should  be  allowed  to  men  ? 
Liberty  of  conscience?  But  we  should  see  them 
all  profiting  by  the  permission  to  become  atheists. 
Libert}^  of  education  ?  But  parents  would  be  pay- 
ing professors  to  teach  their  sons  immorality  and 
error ;  besides,  if  we  are  to  believe  M.  Thiers,  edu- 
cation, if  left  to  the  national  liberty,  would  cease 
to  be  national,  and  we  should  be  educating  our 
children  in  tlie  ideas  of  the  Turks  or  Hindoos, 
instead  of  which  they  have  the  good  fortune  to  be 
educated  in  the  noble  ideas  of  the  Komans.  Lib- 
erty of  labor  ?  But  this  is  only  competition,  whoso 
effect  is  to  leave  all  productions  unconsumed,  to 
exterminate  the  people,  an-d  to  ruin  the  tradesmen. 
The  liberty  of  exchange  ?  But  it  is  well  known 
that  the  protectionists  have  shown,  over  and  over 
again,  that  a  man  must  be  ruined  wlien  he  ex- 


278  THE  LAW. 

changes  freely,  and  that  to  become  ricli  it  is  neces- 
sary to  exchange  without  liberty.  Liberty  of 
association  ?  But,  according  to  the  socialist  doc- 
trine, liberty  and  association  exclude  each  other, 
for  the  liberty  of  men  is  attacked  just  to  force 
them  to  associate. 

You  must  see,  then,  that  the  socialist  democrats 
cannot  in  conscience  allow  men  any  liberty,  be- 
cause, by  their  own  nature,  they  tend  in  every 
instance  to  all  kinds  of  degradation  and  demoral- 
ization. 

We  are  therefore  left  to  conjecture,  in  this  case, 
upon  what  foundation  universal  suffrage  is  claimed 
for  them  with  so  much  importunity. 

The  pretensions  of  organizers  suggest  another 
question,  which  I  have  often  asked  them,"  and  to 
whicli  I  am  not  aware  that  I  ever  j-eceived  an 
answer :  Since  the  natural  tendencies  of  mankind 
are  so  bad  that  it  is  not  safe  to  allow  them  liberty, 
how  comes  it  to  pass  that  the  tendencies  of  organ- 
izers are  always  good  ?  '  Do  not  the  legislators  and 
their  agents  form  a  part  of  the  human  race  ?  Do 
they  consider  that  they  are  composed  of  different 
materials  from  the  rest  of  mankind  ?  They  say 
that  society,  when  left  .to  itself,  rushes  to  inevit- 
able destruction,  because  its  instincts  are  perverse. 
They  pretend  to  stop  it  in  its  downward  course, 
and  to  give  it  a  better  direction.     They  have, 


THE  LAW.  279 

therefore,  received  from  heaven  intelligence  and 
virtues  which  place  them  beyond  and  above  man- 
kind. Let  tliem  show  their  title  to  this  superior- 
ity. They  would  be  our  shepherds,  and  we  are  to 
be  their  flock.  This  arrangement  presupposes  in 
them  a  natural  superiority,  the  right  to  which  we 
are  fully  justified  in  calling  upon  them  to  prove. 

You  must  observe  that  I  am  not  contending 
acrainst  their  riHit  to  invent  social  combinations, 
to  propagate  them,  to  recommend  them,  and  to 
try  them  upon  themselves,  at  their  own  expense 
and  risk  ;  but  I  do  dispute  their  right  to  impose 
them  upon  us  through  the  medium  of  the  law, 
that  is,  by  force  and  by  public  taxes. 

I  w^ould  not  insist  upon  the  Cabetists,  the  Fou- 
rierists,  the  Proudhonians,  the  Universitaries,  and 
the  Protectionists  renouncing  their  own  particular 
ideas;  I  would  only  liave  them  renounce  that  idea 
which  is  common  to  them  all — viz.,  that  of  sub- 
jecting us  by  force  to  their  own  groups  and  series, 
to  their  social  workshops,  to  their  bank  for  lending 
money  without  interest,  to  their  Grseco-Romano 
morality,  and  to  their  commercial  restrictions.  I 
would  ask  them  to  allow  us  the  faculty  of  judging 
of  their  plans,  and  not  to  oblige  us  to  adopt  them, 
if  we  find  that  the}^  hurt  our  interests  or  are  re- 
pugnant to  our  consciences. 

To  presume  to  have  recourse  to  power  and  tax- 


280  THE  LAW. 

ation,  besides  being  oppressive  and  unjust,  implies, 
further,  the  injurious  supposition  that  the  organ- 
izer is  infallible,  and  mankind  incompetent. 

And  if  mankind  is  not  competent  to  judge  for 
itself,  why  do  they  talk  so  much  about  universal 
suffrage  ? 

This  contradiction  in  ideas  is  unhappily  to  be 
found  also  in  facts ;  and  whilst  the  French  nation 
has  claimed  precedence  over  all  others  in  obtaining 
its  rights,  or  rather  its  political  claims,  this  has  by 
no  means  prevented  it  from  being  more  governed, 
and  directed,  and  imposed  upon,  and  fettered,  and 
cheated,  than  any  other  nation.  It  is  also  the  one, 
of  all  others,  where  revolutions  are  constantly  to 
be  dreaded,  and  it  is  perfectly  natural  that  it  should 
be  so. 

So  long  as  this  idea  is  retained,  which  is  admit- 
ted by  all  our  politicians,  and  so  energetically  ex- 
pressed by  M.  Louis  Blanc  in  these  words, 
"  Society  receives  its  impulse  from  power ; "  so 
long  as  men  consider  themselves  as  capable  of 
feeling,  yet  passive  ;  incapable  of  raising  them- 
selves by  their  own  discernment  and  by  their  own 
energy  to  any  morality  or  w^ell-being,  while 
they  expect  everything  from  the  law ;  in  a  word, 
while  they  admit  that  their  relations  with  the  State 
are  the  same  as  those  of  the  flock  with  the  shep- 
lierd,  it  is  clear  that  the  responsibility  of  power  is 


THE  LAW.  281 

immense.  Fortune  and  misfortune,  wealth  and 
destitution,  equality  and  inequality,  all  proceed 
from  it.  It  is  charged  with  everything,  it  under- 
takes everything,  it  does  everything ;  therefore  it 
has  to  answer  for  evei'y thing.  If  we  are  happy,  it 
has  a  right  to  chxim  our  gratitude ;  but  if  we  are  mis- 
erable, it  alone  must  bear  the  blame.  Are  not  our 
persons  and  property,  in  fact,  at  its  disposal  ?  Is  not 
the  law  omnipotent?  In  regulating  industry,  it  has 
engaged  to  make  it  prosper,  otherwise  it  would  have 
been  absurd  to  deprive  it  of  its  liberty ;  and  if  it 
suffers,  whose  fault  is  it  ?  In  pretending  to  adjust 
the  balance  of  commerce  by  the  game  of  tariffs,  it 
engages  to  make  it  pi'osper ;  and  if,  so  far  from 
prospering,  it  is  destroyed,  whose  fault  is  it  ?  In 
granting  its  protection  to  maritime  instrumental- 
ities in  exchange  for  free  navigation,  it  has  en- 
gaged to  render  them  lucrative ;  if  these  restric- 
tions become  burdensome,  whose  fault  is  it  ? 

Thus,  there  is  not  a  grievance  in  the  nation  for 
which  the  Government  does  not  voluntarily  make 
itself  responsible.  Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that 
every  failure  threatens  to  cause  a  revolution? 

And  what  is  the  remedy  proposed  ?  To  extend 
indefinitely  the  dominion  of  the  law,  ^.^.,  the  re- 
sponsibility of  Government.  But  if  the  Govern- 
ment engages  to  raise  and  to  regulate  wages,  and 
is  not  able  to  do  it ;  if  it  engages  to  assist  all  those 


282  THE  LAW. 

who  are  in  want,  and  is  not  able  to  do  it ;  if  it 
engages  to  provide  an  asylum  for  every  laborer, 
and  is  not  able  to  do  it;  if  it  engages  to  offer  to 
all  sneh  as  are  eager  to  borrow,  gratuitous  credit, 
and  is  not  able  to  do  it;  if,  in  words  which  we 
regret  should  have  escaped  the  pen  of  M.  de  La- 
inartine,  "  the  State  considers  that  its  mission  is  to 
enlighten,  to  develop,  to  enlarge,  to  strengthen,  to 
spiritualize,  and  to  sanctify  the  soul  of  the  people," 
— if  it  fails  in  this,  is  it  not  evident  tliat  after 
every  disappointment,  which,  alas!  is  more  than 
probable,  there  will  be  a  no  less  inevitable  revo- 
lution ? 

I  shall  now  resume  the  subject  by  remarking 
that  inmiediately  after  the  economical  part  *  of  the 
question,  and  at  the  entrance  of  the  political  part, 
a  leading  question  presents  itself.  It  is  the  fol- 
lowing : — 

What  is  law  ?  What  ought  it  to  be  ?  What  is 
its  domain  ?  What  are  its  limits  ?  Where,  in  fact, 
does  the  prerogative  of  the  legislator  stop  ? 

I  have  no  hesitation  in  answering.  Law  is  com- 
raon  force  organized  to  jprevent  injustice^  in  short, 
Law  is  Justice. 

*  Political  economy  precedes  politics:  the  former  lias  to 
discover  whether  human  interests  are  harmonious  or  antago- 
nistic,  a  fact  which  must  have  been  decided  upon  before 
politics  can  determine  the  prerogatives  of  Government. 


THE  LAW.  283 

It  is  not  true  that  the  legislator  has  absohite 
power  over  our  persons  and  property,  since  they 
pre-exist,  and  his  work  is  only  to  secure  them  from 
injury.     • 

It  is  not  true  that  the  mission  of  the  law  is  to 
regulate  our  consciences,  our  ideas,  our  will,  our 
education,  our  sentiments,  our  works,  our  ex- 
changes, our  gifts,  our  enjoyments.  Its  mission  is 
to  prevent  the  rights  of  one  from  interfering  with 
those  of  another  in  any  one  of  these  things. 

Law,  because  it  has  force  for  its  necessary  sanc- 
tion, can  only  have  as  its  lawful  domain  the  do- 
main of  force,  which  is  justice. 

And  as  every  individual  has  a  right   to   have, 
recourse  to  force  only  in  cases  of  lawful  defense, 
so  collective  force,  which  is  only  the   union   of 
individual  forces,  cannot  be  rationally  used  for  any 
other  end. 

The  law,  then,  is  solely  the  organization  of  indi- 
vidual rights,  which  existed  before  legitimate 
defense. 

Law  is  justice. 

So  far  from  being  able  to  oppress  the  persons  of 
the  people,  or  to  plunder  their  property,  even  for 
a  philanthropic  end,  its  mission  is  to  protect  the 
former,  and  to  secure  to  them  the  possession  of 
the  latter. 

It  must  not  be  said,  either,  that  it  may  be  phil- 


284:  THE  LAW. 

antliropic,  so  long  as  it  abstains  from  all  oppres- 
sion ;  for  tliis  is  a  contradiction.  The  law  cannot 
avoid  acting  upon  our  persons  and  property  ;  if  it 
does  not  secure  them,  it  violates  them  if  it  touches 
them. 

The  law  is  justice. 

Nothing  can  be  more  clear  and  simple,  more 
perfectly  defined  and  bounded,  or  more  visible  to 
every  eye;  for  justice  is  a  given  quantity,  im- 
mutable and  unchangeable,  and  which  admits  of 
neither  increase  nor  dhninution. 

Depart  from  this  point,  make  the  law  religious, 
fraternal,  equalizing,  industrial,  literary,  or  artis- 
tic, and  you  will  be  lost  in  vagueness  and  uncer- 
tainty; you  w411  be  upon  unknown  ground,  in  a 
forced  Utopia,  or,  which  is  worse,  in  the  midst  of 
a  multitude  of  Utopias,  striving  to  gain  possession 
of  the  law,  and  to  impose  it  upon  you  ;  for  frater- 
nity and  philanthropy  have  no  fixed  limits,  like 
justice.  Where  will  you  stop  ?  Where  is  the  law 
to  stop  ?  One  person  will  only  extend  his  philan- 
thropy to  some  of  the  industrial  classes,  and  will 
require  the  law  to  influence  the  consumers  in 
favor  of  the  producers.  Another,  like  M.  Con- 
siderant,  will  take  up  the  cause  of  the  working 
classes,  and  claim  for  them  by  means  of  the  law, 
at  a  fixed  rate,  clothing,  lodging ^  food^  and  every* 
thing  necesaa/ry  for  the  sujpport  of  life.    A  third, 


THE   LAW.  285 

as  M.  Louis  Blanc,  will  say,  and  with  reason,  that 
this  would  be  an  incomplete  fraternity,  and  that 
the  law  ought  to  provide  them  with  instruments 
of  labor  and  the  means  of  instruction.  A  fourth 
will  observe  that  such  an  arrangement  still  leaves 
room  for  inequality,  and  that  the  law  ought  to 
introduce  into  the  most  remote  hamlets  luxury, 
literature,  and  the  arts.  This  is  the  high  road  to 
communism  ;  in  other  words,  legislation  will  be— 
what  it  now  is — the  battle-field  for  everybody's 
dreams  and  everybody's  covetousness. 

Law  is  justice. 

In  this  proposition  we  represent  to  ourselves  a 
simple,  immovable  Government.  And  I  defy  any 
one  to  tell  me  whence  thethonglitof  a  revolution, 
an  insurrection,  or  a  simple  disturbance  could  arise 
against  a  public  force  confined  to  the  repression  of 
injustice.  Under  such  a  system  there  would  be 
more  well-being,  and  this  well-being  would  be 
more  equally  distributed ;  and  as  to  the  sufferings 
inseparable  from  humanity,  no  one  would  think 
of  accusing  the  Government  of  them,  for  it  would 
be  as  innocent  of  them  as  it  is  of  the  variations  of 
the  temperature.  Have  the  people  ever  been 
known  to  rise  against  the  court  of  apjpeals,  or 
assail  the  justices  of  the  peace,  for  the  sake  of  claim- 
ing the  rate  of  wages,  gratuitous  credit,  instru- 
ments of  labor,  the  advantages  of  the  tariff,  or  the 


286  THE  LAW. 

social  workshop?  They  know  perfectly  well  that 
these  combinations  are  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  justices  of  the  peace,  and  they  would  soon 
learn  that  they  are  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  law. 

But  if  the  law  were  to  be  made  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  fraternity,  if  it  were  to  be  proclaimed  that 
from  it  proceed  all  benefits  and  all  evils,  that  it 
is  responsible  for  every  individual  grievance  and 
for  every  social  inequality,  then  you  open  the 
door  to  an  endless  succession  of  complaints,  irrita- 
tions, troubles,  and  revolutions. 

Law  is  justice. 

And  it  would  be  very  strange  if  it  could  prop- 
erly be  anything  else !  Is  not  justice  right  ?  Are 
not  rights  equal  ?  With  what  show  of  right  can 
the  law  interfere  to  subject  me  to  the  social  plans 
of  Smith,  Jones,  and  Robinson,  rather  than  to 
subject  these  gentlemen  to  my  plans?  Is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  nature  has  not  bestowed  upon  me 
sufficient  imagination  to  invent  a  Utopia  too  ?  Is 
it  for  the  law  to  make  choice  of  one  amongst  so 
many  fancies,  and  to  make  use  of  the  public  force 
in  its  service  ? 

Law  is  justice. 

And  let  it  not  be  said,  as  it  continually  is,  that 
the  law,  in  this  sense,  would  be  atheistic,  individ- 
ual, and  heartless,  and  that  it  would  make  mankind 


THE  LAW.  287 

wear  its  own  image.  This  is  an  absurd  conclusion, 
quite  worthy  of  the  governmental  infatuation 
which  sees  mankind  in  the  law. 

What  then?  Does  it  follow,  that  if  we  are 
free,  we  shall  cease  to  act  ?  Poes  it  follow,  that 
if  we  do  not  receive  an  impulse  from  the  law,  we 
shall  receive  no  impulse  at  all  ?  Does  it  follow, 
that  if  the  law  confines  itself  to  securinsj  to  us  the 
free  exercise  of  our  faculties,  our  faculties  will  be 
paralyzed  ?  Does  it  follow,  that  if  the  law  does 
not  impose  upon  us  forms  of  religion,  modes  of 
association,  methods  of  instruction,  rules  for  labor, 
directions  for  exchange,  and  plans  for  charity, 
we  shall  plunge  eagerly  into  atheism,  isolation, 
ignorance,  misery,  and  egotism?  Does  it  follow, 
that  we  shall  no  longer  recognize  the  power  and 
goodness  of  God  ;  that  we  shall  cease  to  associate 
together,  to  help  each  other,  to  love  and  assist  our 
unfortunate  brethren,  to  study  the  secrets  of 
nature,  and  to  aspire  after  perfection  in  our  exist- 
ence ? 

Law  is  justice. 

And  it  is  under  the  law  of  justice,  under  the 
reign  of  right,  under  the  influence  of  liberty,  se- 
curity, stability,  and  responsibility,  that  every  man 
will  attain  to  the  measure  of  his  worth,  to  all  the 
dignity  of  his  being,  and  that  mankind  will  accom- 
plish, with  order  and  with  calmness — slowly,  it 


288  THE  LAW. 

is  true,  but  with  certainty — the  progress  decreed 
to  it. 

I  believe  that  my  theory  is  correct;  for  what- 
ever be  the  question  upon  which  I  am  arguing, 
whether  it  be  religious,  philosophical,  political,  or 
economical ;  whether  it  affects  well-being,  morality, 
equality,  right,  justice,  progress,  responsibility, 
property,  labor,  exchange,  capital,  wages,  taxes, 
population,  credit,  or  Government ;  at  whatever 
point  of  the  scientific  horizon  I  start  from,  I  in- 
variably come  to  the  same  thing — the  solution  of 
the  social  problem  is  in  liberty. 

And  have  I  not  experience  on  my  side  ?  Cast 
your  eye  over  the  globe.  "Which  are  the  happiest, 
the  most  moral,  and  the  most  peaceable  nations  ? 
Those  where  the  law  interferes  the  least  with  pri- 
vate activity ;  where  the  Government  is  the  least 
felt ;  where  individuality  has  the  most  scope,  and 
public  opinion  the  most  influence ;  where  the  ma- 
chinery of  the  administration  is  the  least  important 
and  the  least  complicated  ;  where  taxation  is  light- 
est and  least  unequal,  popular  discontent  the  least 
excited  and  the  least  justifiable;  where  the  respon- 
sibility of  individuals  and  classes  is  the  most  ac- 
tive, and  where,  consequently,  if  morals  are  not 
in  a  perfect  state,  at  any  rate  they  tend  incessantly 
to  correct  themselves;  where  transactions,  meet- 
ings, and  associations  are  the  least  fettered ;  where 


THE  LAW.  289 

labor,  capital,  and  production  suffer  the  least  from 
artificial  displacements;  where  mankind  follows 
most  completely  its  own  natural  course ;  where 
the  thought  of  God  prevails  the  most  over  the  in- 
ventions of  men ;  those,  in  short,  who  realize  the 
most  nearly  this  idea :  That,  within  the  limits  of 
right,  all  human  transactions  should  flow  from  the 
free,  perfectible,  and  voluntary  action  of  man ; 
nothing  be  attempted  by  the  law  or  by  force,  ex- 
cept the  administration  of  universal  justice. 

I  cannot  avoid  coming  to  this  conclusion — that 
there  are  too  many  great  men  in  the  world  ;  there 
are  too  many  legislators,  organizers,  institutors 
of  society,  conductors  of  the  people,  fathers  of  na- 
tions, etc.,  etc.  Too  many  persons  place  them- 
selves above  mankind,  to  rule  and  patronize  it ; 
too  many  persons  make  a  trade  of  attending  to  it. 
It  will  be  answered:  "You  yourself  are  occupied 
upon  it  all  this  time."  Yery  true.  But  it  must 
be  admitted  that  it  is  in  another  sense  entirely 
that  I  am  speaking  ;  and  if  I  join  the  reformers,  it 
is  solely  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  them  to  relax 
their  hold. 

I  am  not  doing  as  the  inventor  Yaucauson  did 
with  his  automaton,  but  as  a  physiologist  does  with 
the  organization  of  the  human  frame ;  I  would 
study  and  admire  it. 

I  am  acting  with  regard  to  it  in  the  spirit  which 
13 


290  THE  LAW. 

animated  a  celebrated  traveler.  He  found  him- 
self in  the  midst  of  a  savage  tribe.  A  cliild  liad 
just  been  born,  and  a  crowd  of  soothsayers,  ma- 
gicians, and  quacks  were  around  it,  armed  with 
rings,  hooks,  and  bandages.  One  said,  "  This 
child  will  never  smell  the  perfume  of  a  calumet, 
unless  I  stretch  liis  nostrils."  Another  said,  "  He 
will  be  without  the  sense  of  hearing,  unless  1  draw 
his  ears  down  to  his  shoulders."  A  third  said, 
"  He  will  never  see  the  light  of  the  sun,  unless  I 
give  his  eyes  an  oblique  direction."  A  fourth 
said,  "He  will  never  be  upright,  unless  I  bend 
his  legs."  A  fifth  said,  "  He  w^ill  not  be  able  to 
think,  unless  I  press  his  brain."  "  Stop  1 "  said 
the  traveler.  "  Whatever  God  does  is  well  done ; 
do  not  pretend  to  know  more  than  He ;  and  as  He 
has  given  organs  to  this  frail  creature,  allow  those 
organs  to  develop  themselves,  to  strengthen  them- 
selves by  exercise,  use,  experience,  and  liberty." 

God  has  implanted  in  mankind,  also,  all  that  is 
necessary  to  enable  it  to  accomplish  its  destinies. 
There  is  a  providential  social  physiology,  as  well 
as  a  providential  human  physiology.  The  social 
organs  are  constituted  so  as  to  enable  them  to  de- 
velop harmoniously  in  the  grand  air  of  liberty. 
Away,  then,  with  quacks  and  organizers !  Away 
with  their  rings,  and  their  chains,  and  their  hooks, 
and  their  pincers!      Away  with  their  artificial 


THE  LAW.  291 

methods !  Away  with  their  social  workshops,  their 
governmental  whims,  their  centralization,  their 
tariffs,  their  State  universities,  their  State  religions^ 
their  banks  to  lend  gratuitously  to  everybody,  their 
limitations,  their  restrictions,  their  moralizations, 
and  their  equalization  by  taxation!  And  now, 
after  having  vainly  inflicted  upon  the  social  body 
so  many  sj^stems,  let  them  end  where  they  ought 
to  have  begun  :  reject  all  systems,  and  make  trial 
of  liberty — of  liberty,  which  is  an  act  of  faith  in 
God  and  in  His  work. 


"Works  on  Political  Economy 


1.  THE  WEALTH  OF  NATIONS,  an  enquiry  into  the  Nature  and 

Causes  of,  by  Adam  Smith.    12mo,  cloth  extra,  792  pages |2  25 

A  perennial  work,  and  the  only  book  in  history  to  which  has  been  accorded  the 
honor  of  a  Ceuleiiivry  Celebration. 

2.  ESSAYS  ON  POLITICAL  ECONOMY.    By  Fhederick  Bastiat, 

with  Introduction  and  Notes  by  David  A.Wells.    12mo,  cloth,  $1  25 

"The  laws  of  an  abstruse  science  have  never  been  made  more  clear,  or  ex- 
pressed more  forcibly." — Cincinnati  Commercial. 

3.  THE  SOPHISMS  OF  PROTECTION.     By  Frederick  Bastiat, 

with  Introduction  by  Horace   White.      12mo,  cloth  extra,   400 

pages gl  00 

"  Contains  the  most  telling  statements  of  the  leading  principles  of  Free-Trade 
over  published."— iV.  1'.  Nation. 

4.  "WHAT  IS  FREE-TRADE  ?    An  adaptation  for  American  Readers 

of  Bastiat's   "  Sophisms  of  Protection."     By  Emile  Walter,  a 

Worker.    12mo,  cloth , 75 

'*  Unsurpassed  iu  the  happiness  of  its  illustrations."— i\^.  T.  Nation. 

5.  SOCIAL  ECONOMY.    By  Prof .  J.  E.  Thorold  Rogers.   Revised  and 

edited  for  American  readers.    12mo,  cloth 75 

"  Gives  in  the  compass  of  150  pages,  concise,  jet  comprehensive  answers  to  the 
most  important  questions  in  social  economy  *  •  •  cannot  be  too  highly  recom- 
mended for  the  use  of  teachers,  students,  and  the  general  public." — American 
Athenaeum. 

6.  PROTECTION  AND   FREE-TRADE.     A  Series  of  Essays.     By 

Isaac  Butts.    12mo,  cloth  extra $125 

"A  clear  and  effective  presentation  of  the  case." — N.  I".  Evening  Post 

7'  AN  ALPHABET  IN  FINANCE.  A  simple  statement  of  perma- 
nent principles,  and  their  application  to  questions  of  the  day.  By 
Graham  McAdam.  With  Introduction  by  R.  R.  Bowkeu.  12mo, 
cloth ! $1  25 

"A  timely  volume,  whose  directness  and  radness  can  but  be  of  service."— ^15 w 
Bnglander. 

"A  model  of  clear-thinking  and  happy  expression."— Por<?ancl  Press. 

G.   P.   PUTNAM'S   SONS, 

182  Fifth  Avenue,  N.  Y. 


PUTNAM'S  SERIES  OF  ATLASES. 


L  NEW  MERC ANTILiE  MAP  OF  THE  WORIiO,  on  Mer. 

cator's  Projection.     For  Merchants,  Shippers,  Ship  Owners,  etc. 
Size,  55x40  inches.    Price,  in  cloth,  or  on  rollers,  $10.00. 

II.  THE  IlVTERNATIOTVAIi  ATLAS.  Political,  Classical,  and 
Historical,  consisting  of  62  Maps — 32  of  Modern  Geography,  s^howing 
all  the  latest  Discoveries  and  changes  of  Boundaries,  and  30  of  Histori- 
cal and  Classical  Geography,  with  descriptive  Letter-press  of  Historical 
and  Cliussical  Geography,  by  Wm.  F.  Collier,  LL.D.,  and  Leonabd 
SCHMiTZ,  LL.D.,  with  copious  Indices.     8vo,  cloth  extra,  $6.00. 

Ill,  THE  COLL.EGIATE  ATLiAS.  A  new,  comprehensive  and  use- 
ful Atlas  of  Modern  Geography  for  the  Library  and  for  ordinary  refer- 
ence, with  about  40  Maps.    1872.    Imp.  8vo,  cloth  extra,  $4.00. 

rV.  THE  STLDEIVT'S  ATLAS  of  PHYSIC  Ali  GEOGRAPHY. 

Consisting  of  20  Maps  with    descriptive    Letter-press,   illustrated  by 
numerous  engravings.    Imp.  8vo,  cloth  extra,  $2.50. 

V.  THE      STUDENT'S     ATLAS      OP    HISTORICAL     AND 

CLASSICAL   GEOGRAPHY.     (The  two  above  works  bound  together.) 
Containing  30  Maps,  with  descriptive  Letter-press.     Cloth,  $2.50. 

VI.  THE      STUDENT'S    ATLAS    OP     CLASSICAL      GEOG. 

RAPHY.      Containing   15    Maps.    Imperial    Svo ;    with    descriptive 
Letter-preaa,  by  L.  Schmitz,  LL.D.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

VII.  THE  STUDENT'S  ATLAS  OP  HISTORICAL  GEOG- 
RAPHY. Consisting  of  16  Maps,  Imperial  Svo;  constructed  and 
engraved  by  Miller,  with  descriptive  Letter-press,  by  Wm.  F.  Collieb, 
LL.D.,  and  full  Index.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

\nn.  THE  PORTABLE  ATLAS  of  MODERN  GEOGRAPHY. 

Constructed  and  Engraved  by  John  Bartholomew,  F.R.A.S.    With 
16  Maps.    Imperial  Svo.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

IX.  THE  ATLAS  OP  SCRIPTURE   GEOGRAPHY.    16  Maps, 

with  Questions  with  each  Map.     Small  quarto,  cloth,  75  cents. 


Some  few  of  the  Criticisms  on  "  Putnam's  Series  of  Atlases." 

•'  The  International  Atlas  ...  is  handsome  and  accurate,  beautifully  en- 
graved, and  exquisitely  colored  ...  of  exceptional  completeness." — ^.  T. 
Evening  Mail. 

"  The  Maps  are  well  executed,  and  the  work  is  most  convenient  for  reference." 
— iV^  Y.  Tribune. 

*'  The  Maps  of  the  Classical  Atlas  are  of  exquisite  cle&rfiess  and  beauty." — 
Christian  Union. 

*'  The  M  ips  of  the  Pobtable  Atlas  are  excellent,  and  the  series  to  which  it 
belongs  contains  the  best  low-priced  Atlases  in  the  market." — iV,  11  Ev.  Mail. 

"  The  Scripture  Atlas  is  full,  accurate,  clear,  and  portable." — Christian 
Union. 

•'  We  refer  to  it  with  edification  and  delight." — Rhode  Island  Schoolmanter. 

'*  A  very  complete  and  compendious  work,  apparently  accurate  and  in  beauti- 
ful style."— .Rep.  Stephen  JI.  Tyng^  D.D. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  New  York. 


How  T 
forS 
how  and  w 
master.'  - 
i2mo,  151 

"We  write  ^ 
and  for  good." 

"  We  cordialt 


A 


MAN 
ness- 
I  vol.,  i3r 


T 


HE  r 

Hea. 
Mother  r< 
French  of 


OUTLIl" 

Thing; 

ESTIMi- 


i2mo,' 

"  This  litt:. 
pages."— -V- 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


7^ 


=?=^ 


f':^V\ 


-^m 


;^a£2 


Vfl-T^^  ^ 


WSr^ 


m 


TTINT.'    ^,.>v; 


lMe2^ 


JRZC'D  LP 


SEP  ^7  1962 


THE 
Pi 
Home,  i 
prepare.      JftN3l1997 

keeper, 
and  gai 
Monthly 


"Young 
much  from. 


i 


utnm'?"  mil 


CD57TEmSM 


V. 


THE     STUDENT'S    ATLAS    OF    CLASSICAL    GEOG 
RAPHY.        Containing    15   Maps,    Imperial   8vo ;      with 
descriptive  letter-press,  by  L.  Schmitz,  LL.D.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

VL 

THE  STUDENT'S  ATLAS  OF  HISTORICAL  GEOG- 
RAPHY. Consisting  of  16  Maps,  Imperial  8vo. ;  Con- 
structed and  Engraved  by  Miller,  with  descriptive  letter-press  by  William  F. 
COLUER,  LL.D.,  and  full  index.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

VII. 

JD 


THE 
CI 

(The  tw 
letter-presi 


nPHE 

-■■     Con 


THE 


1.  The  And 

2.  Countriei 
8.  Canaan,  ] 

4.  Joumeyi 

5.  Canaan  a 

6.  Dominioi 

7.  Countriei 
&  Palestine  in  tne  nme  or  unnst 


'TL'S ATLAS 


8873120 


Y. 

.S. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY      , 


15.  Ancient  Jerusalem. 
16.  Modem  Jerusalem. 


Small  4to,  flexible  cloth,  75  cents. 
Same  few  of  the  Criticisms  on  "  Putnam's  Series  of  Atlases." 

"Thb  International  Atlas  ♦  »  is  handsome  and  accurate,  beautifully  engraved 
and  exquisitely  colored    *    *    «    of  exceptional  completeness."— iV.  F.  £f«e>ii»i<7  Jfat/. 

"The  Maps  are  well  executed,  and  the  worlc  is  most  convenient  for  reference."— iV.  T 
Tribune. 

"  The  Maps  of  the  Classical  Atlas,  are  of  exquisite  clearness  and  beauty." — ChrisHau 
Union. 

"  Tne  Maps  of  the  Portablk  Atlas,  are  excellent,  and  the  series  to  which  It  belongs  con 
lAins  the  best  low-priced  atlases  in  the  market."— i^.  T.  Evening  Mail. 

"  The  ScRiPTtjRK  Atlas  is  full,  accurate,  clear  and  portable."— C%ri«<tan  Unitm. 

*' We  refer  to  it  with  edification  and  delight."— 5Aoc?«  Island  Schoolmaster. 

'•  A  very  complete  and  compendious  work,  apparently  accurate  and  in  beautiful  style.* 
~Rn.  Stepken  U.  Tyng,  D.D. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS., 

Vourth  Avenue  and  Ttmenty-Thirii  /itrmet 


